500 words a day on whatever I want

Oriana Farrell

Oriana Lee Farrell (1974- ), of Memphis, Tennessee, was yet another unarmed Black American shot at by police. This time, though, police made 18 minutes of the video public.

Family vacation picture from October 17th 2013 near Pecos, New Mexico

On Monday afternoon, October 28th 2013, while Farrell was on a cross-country road trip with her five homeschooled children, ages 6 to 18, the New Mexico state police pulled her over “in the middle of nowhere”, as she put it (Route 518 south of Taos).

Out-of-state plates: check.

End of the month: check.

Driving while black: check.

Officer Tony DeTavis said she was going 71 mph in a 55-mph zone. During a dispute over the speeding ticket, she drives off!

DeTavis chases her, siren blaring. Less than a minute later, she pulls over. He shouts at her to get out of the car. He tries to pull her out. Her children are screaming. She fears DeTavis and does not trust him.

Farrell stopped by the police

After five minutes he persuades her to come out. But when he asks her to turn around, apparently to handcuff her, she tries to get back in the car.

DeTavis tries to stop her. Her 14-year-old son comes out and fights him! DeTavis points his Taser at him: “Get on the ground!” Her son runs back in the car.

Two other police officers arrive, ready to shoot.

DeTavis tries to get Farrell’s son out of the car. The door is locked. He smashes the window with his nightstick.

Family vacation: Officer DeTavis smashing a car window.

Farrell drives away. Officer Elias Montoya shoots at the moving car full of children three times – “at the left rear tire in an attempt to immobilize the vehicle,” he says.

Three police cars chase her. They go through Taos, hitting 93 (150 kph). She gives herself up in front of Hotel Don Fernando de Taos. The police also arrest her son, but later let him go.

State police had shot at four people that month, Farrell and three others. All four were persons of colour. New Mexico is 41% White.

Yep believe it and also the shooting that happened in new York where the police shot at the guy and missed but hit two innocent bystanders charged him for their mistake saying “The defendant is the one that created the situation that injured innocent bystanders,” said an assistant district attorney, Shannon Lucey …..ain’t that some bs.

I posted the video to this incident in the open thread a couple weeks ago, this is a perfect of example of how the police have no intention to, “serve and protect” black people, instead they follow the creed to, “harass and arrest” black people.

I have always said, if a white police officer isn’t pulling over a black person to give a ticket, question, search us, arrest us and arrive in our neighborhoods to ,”protect and serve us” ( which is a joke, being when they arrive, they even treat a black person that has been a victim of a crime, like a criminal ), They have nothing to say to a black person, not one, “hello, how are you?” or “are you ok maam or sir?”

This kind of courtesy is reserved for only white people, you know, the people they actually, “serve and protect”.

They always talk down to a black person, never with respect or professionalism.

They make it a point to let black people know, they don’t like black people by the way they talk, treat and under serve our neighborhoods.

Let me give my black people a nickels worth of advice, if you happen to be in a place, where you’re the only black person in a sea of white people and trouble is a foot, get your black azz outta dodge, before police arrive, because if you don’t….you bet your black azz, you’ll be the 1st one they pull to the side and question, run your criminal background and detain yo azz, until they can rule you out as a suspect.

Then you better hope to god a blind old white man or woman, doesn’t mistake you for the perp, ( being white people think all black people look alike and are all criminals ) The white cops will believe them and take you into custody.

Same thing if you’re driving, if there is a road block or anywhere where police are, avoid being around them at all costs. By all means, don’t ask police for help, directions anything, they will probably charge you with something like, interfering with a police investigation or something along those lines.

This woman didn’t make matters better but worse for herself and her children.

This woman, DID put her children in danger but not for the reasons you may be thinking. She put her children in danger by not dealing with a white racist white cop in a way that would not make things spiral out of control.

Being a black women, how could she not see that this cop, had no regard for the lives of her and her children? Me, being a black man, i know not to make things worse, if i see that a white cop is baiting me, so i can say or do something that would give him an excuse to use excessive force or arrest me.

She allowed for her emotions to take over her, better judgement and as a result, gave the racist cop, all the reason to do what he did, ( which what he was trying to do in the first place ) and it worked!

This is a tactic that white police officers use on black people all the time and it works, 99.9% of the time. They instigate and provoke black people to say or do something, so they can charge us with a crime, anything to get cuffs on us and in custody.

Now, that being said, did that warrant these terrorists dressed in uniforms, called police officers to bash the windows out of the mini van and terrorize the little children in the car and shoot 3 times at the van, pulling away? of coarse not.

I can see that some will say, that at one point, she was trying to protect her children from the terrorists by driving off, after the cop trying to bash into the windows but she didn’t cooperate with the police officer at all.

Maybe she was high on weed?, maybe that clouded her judgement? who knows… I think that everyone on this blog will agree, that she wasn’t very smart about the whole situation and did put her children in danger but not for the reasons, the Mexico police dept. is giving.

I am sure she felt harassed, but we have to use our heads when dealing with law enforcement and driving while black or any other situation, unless we want to be carried out by six and buried six feet under and folks walking slow behind our caskets and singing hymns.

I was dumbfounded watching the video. I thought maybe she was crazy or something. You don’t want to do anything to aggravate the police, it’s just not smart.

Of course, police have to realize that they may occasionally pull someone over who has lost their witts, so they can’t just shoot every crazy person they come across. But yes, I seefault on both sides. I don’t say that one justifes the other, but it definitely needs to be acknowledged.

yeah she was wrong for driving off and the cop was wrong for shooting. both are to blame for this. any sane black person knows u are supposed to be calm don’t reach for anything and don’t drive off. I mean we saw how they killed two black ppl for leading them on a car chase and pumped a lot of bullets into the car. we know if this woman was white they would not have shot, but the mother should not have drove off , take the ticket, contest it in court get the badge number and leave it at that.

Abagond, you claim she was racially profiled. That may well have been(and based on reading some of the other stuff on this blog probably was) a major factor in the police offier going berserk and trying to smash his way into the car and then shooting at it, but I doubt she was pullled over for being black. I do not drive, and thus may be mistaken, but is it actually possible to recognize the race of a person moving at that speed in a car? She should have been pulled over, irrespective of her background, but once the officer tried to smash her car window in, he lost the moral high ground.

I saw the video on MSNBC some weeks ago and the only thing that kept going through my mind when she tried to get the cop to her go was:

“Why is she trying to get her teenage son killed?” — putting him in the position where he feels he needs to protect his mother, a situation that could have easily got him killed.

of course her children would do anything they could to protect her — whose child wouldn’t, but I would never allow my sons to be put in a situation where I know those trigger happy a’sholes would shoot them without asking questions.

that little boy looked so scared and nervous, hopping around trying to figure out what to do to help his mother— as a mother, it hurt my Heart to watch him trying to defend her —- this mother should have thought of her children first — take the G-d’mn ticket and deal with the BS later!

she knows who she was dealing with, she’s not brand new — and she knows those cops would have killed her son without blinking an eye.

The whole situation was a mess but she endangered her children’s lives– I’m just happy that the children got out of this SAFE and without physical injuries_

I hope they got some counseling for the mental anguish of having to see their mother roughed up, getting shot at, and having the police make them lie on the ground with guns pointed at their heads… their screams had brought tears to my eyes.

Driving away from cops in this country while black is on the top of the most stupid and dangerous thing you can do. As if the trigger finger isn’t already itchy. Cops shoot naked people here, why where are they going to pull out that dangerous weapon.( Before anyone starts talking about a certain dangerous weapon know as a the male genitals which have done a lot of damage in the wrong hands I have yet to hear about one killing anyone.) I get embarrassed all the time by people from other countries asking me if our police force is so inapt.
I get that it is a dangerous job, but you signed up for it. Shooting at car full of kids is dumb, there is no excuse for it. Even Hollywood never shows a scene where cops go shooting up at a family with kids in the car.

@ Legion, she doesn’t really have my sympathies but I have driven down in states where the police started to call me boy. I looked at most got their badge number reported them but most of them were either a little older than me or my same age. I had one cop rubbing his gun while talking to me. I was tempted to ask him if he would stop stroking or jerking his gun, but common sense took over. (Plus my survival instincts.)

I keep telling my dads ( dads of the children I take care of) here who go to jail for the dumbest things ever or not so dumb things, stop messing around with the cops especially when you are on parole. One of the fathers of the kids I teach dad was protecting his daughter and they put him away for breaking his parole.

So I say, in the middle of nowhere, I would like to be in a place where people are. I don’t trust the police, they have not shown themselves to be trustworthy to PoC especially blacks. Yet with my kids in tow, I am not going to make a scene and I will definitely not give them an opportunity to shoot at my family like we are fish in a barrel.

@ Linda, amen. You’ve got to put your kids first. You got to remember where and situation you are dealing with. One of my friends use to be a cop, she use to say we aren’t trained to disable someone we are trained to put them down.

Seriously? What does being black have to do with this case? She was rude and uncooperative with the officer from the beginning, while receiving so many breaks. He asked her so many times to just step out of the car so that they could talk calmly, but for the longest time she decided to argue with him instead after she just evaded him. Regardless of panic you cannot evade an officer, there is no sympathy for if you are stressed or not. Once she evaded she was unpredictable, and then she’s asking him to shake her hand to trust him? C’mon. Put yourself in the officer’s position for a moment, imagine arguing with someone over every simple command given, someone who just about took off a moment ago, and then seeing a group of young people coming at you. You’d be fairly panicked yourself, but even still he didn’t fire his taser! He just commanded the older kid to get on the ground.

That woman endangered her kids and took off, all for what, 126$ ? I know it’s easy to be dramatic, “broken glass falling onto screaming children”, but take a an unbiased look at the situation and assess from there, please stop trying to see a race issue where there isn’t one. Obviously the gun being fired was excessive, but that officer most likely didn’t even know that there where children there, and if he did he should be fired but outside of that there was nothing unnecessary about what the police did.

I think race should be left out of this one. Everyone knows better than to do what she did. Yes the cop overreacted by shooting, but in many instances these cops feel in danger too. She did nothing to deescalate the situation just because of her unwillingness to surrender. She is at least as guilty as the cop here. Everyone knows not to just drive off that’s crazy!

Ok Legion you’ve made your point and I agree with it but now you’re being a bit of an a$$.

What struck me about the incident and video was that she almost got her kid killed. He came out to defend her and actually attacked the officer. Many black people have been shot dead for much much less.

Yes, she was not the perfect victim. She broke the law. She showed poor judgement. The whole thing is an object lesson in how NOT to deal with the police. BUT that hardly means the police were not racist.

It seems probable they were racist because:

1. The disregard they showed for the safety of her children.
2. They assumed she was armed and dangerous when she was not.

1. The disregard they showed for the safety of her children.
2. They assumed she was armed and dangerous when she was not.

It’s true that this is common with racist cops… but with BAD cops in general also. Cops will naturally try to control a situation — bad cops will do ANYTHING to control a situation because they are not preserving the necessary authority needed tp do their jobs, but are instead maintaining their own personal authority.

@ legion
“Sean Bell deserves tears and activism.
Kenneth Chamberlain Sr. deserves tears and activism.
(there are more examples, to be sure, those are just two that I remember.)

Trying to see racism in Farrell’s example is a real insult to other serious matters.

A real insult.”

I agree, some black ppl will mess it up for the others that do deal with racist cops and situations where they did nothing wrong and were the “perfect” victim. I feel sorry for the kids for having to go through this and being shot at. with the Kenneth chamberlain case I am disgusted, they used the n word and killed him yet nothing happened to them, so yeah of a black person killed after being called the n word still makes ppl say well we can’t prove it was racist there is no hope.

I don’t think I have any rotting veggies to throw at you, but I will say you summarized exactly what I was thinking after reading this post. I declined to comment because I did not have an elegant way of putting it.

Though I must say the cops were ill mannered as well and both need to reap what they sow.

I didn’t watch video, but read post only. This lady definitely has mental problems (i.e Borderline personality disorder) her action were definitely not called for, but shooting at a van full of children was insane. I’m glad Montoya got fired.

I haven’t read through all of the comments, but I’m gonna have to agree with you here. Were the police being unreasonable? Yes, quite possibly, but, can you just drive off because you feel like it? No.

I wonder if she took off because she knew she had the w33d pipes in her car and she thought they would search the car and find it.

Montoya and DeTavis told the dispatcher about her having a gun during the chase through Taos. Montoya brings up the gun first. DeTavis agrees with him but says she never pulled it out. It is not always clear what they are saying, but that is the first I heard of her having a gun in the video.

Given that no gun was found and that their mention of her gun came AFTER Montoya shot his, it seems like a lie to protect themselves from a lawsuit – since they are not supposed to shoot on fleeing, unarmed suspects.

She broke the law by fleeing the police. She should be arrested. I do not see anyone disputing that.

She also showed amazingly poor judgement. When I am stopped by the police, I remain calm, keep my hands in view, do not argue, run or do anything unexpected – precisely to avoid a nightmare scenario like this. She did only one of those five things (keep her hands in view).

But none of that is a crime worthy of death. None of that, in itself, puts anyone in danger.

What put everyone in danger was the police acting as if she was armed and dangerous when she was not. And that was poor judgement on their part, not hers.

There was no sound reason for smashing her window with children inside, to shoot at her car three times, to chase her down in a high-speed chase through town. The last two could have easily got someone killed, the first one could have sent someone to the hospital, maybe blinded someone. And for what? She was not a physical threat to anyone.

The police could have simply issued a warrant for her arrest and get her later when she is not so freaked out.

She cannot act as if she is brand new – but neither can the police. Dealing with people who break the law and who do not want to be arrested is common in their line of work. Something they signed up for. Something they are TRAINED for, precisely to avoid dangerous scenarios like this one.

I think we have a case here where one Cop (Montoya) really screwed up by shooting at a fleeing vehicle. At worst, he shot at a vehicle knowing it was filled with kids. At best he shot at a vehicle without even knowing who was in it. Neither option is defensible, but unlike many police departments, here there seemed to be a swift investigation, and the policeman was removed from the force. That is better than what happens in a lot of places.

As Legion mentions, officer Tony DeTavis (the original arresting officer) upon finding that she was driving on an expired license, could easily have impounded her car had he had it out for her. She and her kids would have been out on the side of the road with no way of continuing their journey, and no belongings. Officer DeTavis could have easily become angry and demanding much earlier during their confrontation, once a woman who he was clearly already giving a break to, continued argue with him, as if they were in positions of equal authority. Even after she evaded arrest and then pulled over again, DeTavis did not yank her out of the car, throw her to the ground, and forcefully handcuff her (which it would have been within procedure to do.) He still tried to reason with her, and to spare her children from an ugly scene.

When her son tried to defend his mother by attacking the arresting officer, DeTavis did not shoot the boy. He also did not use his baton on him, which could have done serious damage. He didn’t curse or unduly threaten the boy, He also did not charge the boy, which he easily could have done. If this guy was a bad cop, there were plenty of opportunities for him to legally screw over this family, yet he did not do it.

I am against racial profiling and police brutality, and I know it when I see it (having myself been the victim of one and very nearly the other). IN THIS CASE there was much patience shown by the police for a good part of the arrest. Obviously shooting at the fleeing car was out of policy, and the offending officer was fired for it. Breaking windows in a car that is a flight risk is probably also within policy. Automobile manufacturers use “safety glass” in vehicles that is designed to hold together when shattered and to bead rather than to fly in sharp shards. This why first responders routinely shatter auto glass in the course of rescuing vehicle occupants.

I see one bad cop here who lost his job. I also see a very foolish motorist who”
– Was speeding;
– Driving on a suspended license;
– Evaded arrest;
– Resisted arrest, and;
– Was carrying drug paraphernalia in her vehicle;

It was not because she was black, she eluded police twice; her son fought with the police; she drove the van at speeds of over 100 miles per hour. She had also been drinking and had marijuana in her possession. Not to mention she had her children in the van. Perhaps everyone is looking at this wrong.

“Legion @ There was no sound reason for smashing her window with children inside …King says this is probably within procedure. I’m a little lazy to search around and check. It doesn’t look at all outside of allowable procedure to me.”

Linda says,

C’mon now, Legion, smashing out her window was a bit much… at this point, the cop was just out and out pi’sed off, he was mad and steaming and wanted to get his hands on the boy for jumping him.

and I bet if he had got his hands on the mother or the boy, he would have beat their a’ses off camera.

Actually, if you retreat into your car, and roll up the windows, as a way to escape/evade a police officer. Then ignore orders to come out of the vehicle or roll down the window, breaking the window, in order to apprehend the suspect, is policy in most police departments. I can’t yet find out if it was policy at this particular department or not, but I ll keep looking.

One hint as to whether it was within policy or not is that the officer who discharged his sidearm was investigated and subsequently terminated. The officer who broke the window did not receive any disciplinary action, from what I am able to tell in the articles. I’m pretty sure it is allowable in such cases, particularly after a suspect has just used the vehicle to try and escape.

She did not MAKE the police officers chase her. That was THEIR BONEHEADED DECISION:

From the Taos News:

“A criminal justice professor at John Jay College in New York, Eugene O’Donnell, said he had been using video of the incident in his classroom Tuesday to demonstrate how something like a seemingly routine traffic stop can veer out of control.

O’Donnell, a former police officer with the New York Police Department, said “there’s no justification” to fire at a moving vehicle in such a case. O’Donnell also stressed that in many jurisdictions, officers would not have engaged in a high-speed chase after Ferrell fled a second time.”

and:

“Under state police policy on high-speed chases, a chase can be called off “if it is believed the continuation will be more dangerous to the public, officers, and/or the person being pursued than the necessity to capture the suspect.””

Anti-black racism is not just “being mean to black people”. It is assuming things about them based on stereotypes, like that they are armed and dangerous. It is assuming their lives are not worth protecting. It is thinking that only Perfect Black People deserve any rights.

“Automobile manufacturers use “safety glass” in vehicles that is designed to hold together when shattered and to bead rather than to fly in sharp shards. This why first responders routinely shatter auto glass in the course of rescuing vehicle occupants.”

Ah now I see why you’re going so hard on this topic as it seems you’re an advocate of game theory? which, imo, suffers from the “fatal” flaw of assumed rationality.

As we can see here in the case of Ms. Farrell, despite what she probably should have known and what should have informed her actions, her behavior was not rational (though I suspect she was trying to “attitude” her way out of a drug search).

I agree with you generally here but Abagond has a point that even irrational actors have rights though I think in this instance she pushed her luck and the first/main cop showed great restraint and good police skills.

@ Legion, I was once in a car with a friend who took a wide turn because we were coming from off a step hill. The cops pulled us over asked him for his license took two seconds look at then went over the passenger side and asked me for mine. Now I was a might curious about why he would do it. I didn’t have control of the car, he didn’t ask if the driver was drunk but sure as the sky is blue he wanted my license when I gave him my college id he was livid. NO! There’s no social security number on this! Where is your license. I told him I don’t carry my license when I am not driving or planning to drive. Now, the guy is asking my to step out of the car. Now picture me thinking, has there ever been a situation where the cops pull you out of the car for no reason that turn out for your favor. I then began memorizing his badge number out loud. I told him it was ok Officer 123, I am now getting out of the car Officer 123. I don’t trust the police but I am still in love with my life.
Now my radar was binging. The driver of the car was white you took two seconds but my id a college id you had to take all the way to your car. For a wide turn down a steep hill. No I don’t believe you can trust the cops at all. They have proven themselves over and over again not there to serve and protect people of color especially blacks. But, you better learn the patience of Buddha or the love of Christ when in those situations. My mother use to say you could end up Dead right.
In this case the mother may have been wrong but shooting at a car full of kids is dumb. I don’t know the full situation but she is lucky she still has all her kids and her life. That situation could have gone very sideways very soon.

Abagond:”Anti-black racism is not just “being mean to black people”. It is assuming things about them based on stereotypes, like that they are armed and dangerous. It is assuming their lives are not worth protecting. It is thinking that only Perfect Black People deserve any rights.”

All this over a ticket?!?! None of this made ANY sense.
I’m so mad she carried on like that, running her mouth, not caring and doing what she wants. Sign the damn ticket and move on! And then we wonder why people got the saying “Black people don’t respect authority”. Prove me wrong, because even no one can explain why the heck she drove off in the first place! “She was scared”…..MY A$$,from a ticket?……. She wanna do what she wants and be slick. OH and nice move racing back to the van and risking YOUR kids to be shot at. Then do not get me started on her son. UGH! I wish I was there to smack the mess outta him. Are you crazy?! You got that boy fighting officers now?! STUPID. She better stack the hell up in the future, weed pipes in the car, expired license, you talk smart to a officer and your kids wildin out on policemen. SMH.
.

This was not racist in the least. She was WRONG all over being defiant and jeapordizing her children like that. Her being black has NOTHING to do with this at all. Judgement is being clouded due to similar racial accidents with police, but this one has nothing close to them. Look past that and see what she really is…..a irresponsible mother. Sorry, but she gets no tears from me. I’ll save them for real injustice.

From the time DeTavis pulled her over and up to the time she raced away, Farrell was not altogether rational in her behavior and speech. DeTavis should have attempted to take control of the situation the moment Farrell refused to follow procedure of either signing the ticket or agreeing to go before a judge.

He made another misstep when he failed to immediately handcuff Farrell when she exited her vehicle after being pulled over for the second time. Rather than wasting time by offering her more of his ‘patient’ explanations, which she was clearly ignoring anyway, he should have tackled and handcuffed her as soon as he got the chance.

DeTavis’s footing was lost altogether not long afterwards when he decided to chase down a $126 ticket-avoiding person at high speed and to endanger not only her life, but also the lives of her children as well as the lives of pedestrians and other drivers on the road…and his own life to boot.

Major blame goes to Officer DeTavis for how HE allowed this fiasco to play out.

Her son better be grateful. A black male being released with no charges after attacking a officer? Unheard of.
Better learn to control his emotions and thank the stars they saw he was young/trying to protect his mother.

DeTavis did enough unnecessary babbling of his own. If he’d stopped babbling for a second, he might have seen that she obviously was not firing on all cylinders, and he might then have decided to take control of the situation rather than to give Farrell so much leeway that she leaves the scene with little effort not once but two times.

DeTavis’s rage at being defied and shamed in front of the other two cops is probably what caused him to recklessly charge after Farrell at 90 something miles an hour anyway.

This sista is mentally ill. How the hell she did not know know the rules of the game when white cops pull your black ass over. Stay in the car with both hands on the wheel, remain calm, yes sir,no sir, and behave yourself. I have no sympathy for her stupid ass. What is she teaching her black sons, how to wind up dead? Her parents failed her dumbass. No, the cops should not have shot at her and the kids, but she escalated this situation with her stupidity. Remember your ass is black in this majority white country, and a target is on our back.

Yes I do support a trained officer shooting at a car’s tires even if said car has kids in it if the officer deems it necessary and it is proven to be necessary as was the case here. Farrel was a lunatic.

Yes I do support a trained officer shooting at a car’s tires even if said car has kids in it if the officer deems it necessary and it is proven to be necessary as was the case here. Farrel was a lunatic.”

This is the other extreme…

The “Officer as god” idea. Police officers are trained and therefore even when the law enforcement authority takes the drastic step of terminating the offending officer (the most drastic disciplinary step) based on his bad judgement, it was still clearly “necessary” to some people.

I disagree with trying to play the race card She was wrong for fleeing from police not once but twice and the fired cop was completely wrong for firing at a car with kids in it. It doesn’t matter if she was black, white or anything in between.
Appalling behavior for a self-described “educator” and again, it doesn’t matter what her race is,

Not seeing what race has to do with any of this. If she was speeding, she deserved to be pulled over. Driving while black has nothing to do with it if you ACTUALLY ARE breaking the law. Then it’s just “breaking the law while black.” If a cop pulls you over for a ticket you don’t then speed off. If they found a few marijuana pipes, maybe she was stoned or something at the time and that explains the odd behavior. As for the shooting, if they were aiming for the tires, that doesn’t count as shooting at the passengers. Of course cops are allowed to shoot out the tires of unarmed suspects during a highway chase. It happens all the time on Southern California freeways where high speed chases are weekly events.

She had every right to drive off the first time, but no, I would never have done that b/c I know that American cops get a hard on for a police chase, and you will not win…especially w/ some bored cops on a New Mexican highway.

I just saw the video, and the cop tried to force her to sign the citation, which she had every right to refuse. He was wrong to say “You have to pick an option right now…I told you your two options…you do have another option…if you do not want to sign the citation you’re stating to me that you want to see a judge right now.” The cop seemed to be implying he was going to arrest her for not signing the citation, which would be illegal.

Not only was he wrong for making her sign the citation, but what kind of man does that to a woman with her kids present…especially for going 16 MPH over the speed limit, which I’d bet half the cars on that road were doing at that time. What kind of man points a gun at unarmed kids and their mother? The indecent US police state at its best.

I must admit I have not fully seen the video so I will watch that and give a much better response than this one.

You are however right in that she did not have to sign the ticket, but with her not signing she must then surrender herself to jail. It may be different for each state but signing is not admitting guilt (which she may not have been aware of). Signing simply means she is aware of the ticket and agrees to appear on said date in court to pay or fight it. It was stupid on her part to simply not sign it and go on with her day, but it was not illegal for the cop to tell her she will be arrested because depending on the laws in said state she most certainly could have and the cop would have been in the right. Though he would then have to read her Miranda rights and go through the whole nine.

Not necessarily, and at least she would have had the right to immediately go before a magistrate, not to jail per se.

I understand that a New Mex. traffic citation manual says that “Refusal to sign the Uniform Traffic Citation for any offense” requires both “court appearances” and “arrest.” Problem is that it bases that “arrest” provision on a Supreme Court decision that applies to criminal offences, and “refusal to sign the Uniform Traffic Citation” is not apparently a criminal offence that permits arrest w/o a warrant in New Mexico: http://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/2006/nmrc/jd_66-8-125-18843.html

Understandably the cop had probably been instructed to place under arrest anyone who refused to sign, but he never did before she drove off the first time.

Practically it was not wise for her to drive off, and it’s not something I’d ever do or advise anyone else to do.

“Some traffic offenses require that the defendant be arrested and taken into custody. Arrest occurs when a defendant is charged with:

Reckless Driving §66-8-113
•Driving While Intoxicated §66-8-102
(not a subject for this manual)
•Failure to stop for accident involving death, injury or damage to property §§66-7-
201, 66-7-202
•Driving while Suspended or Revoked §66-5-39;
or when a person:
•Refuses to sign the Uniform Traffic Citation for any offense, or
•Requests an immediate appearance”

So far as we know she did not request an immediate appearance and that she did refuse to sign. According to this it would require an arrest. Though it can be said that others things listed would require her arrest as well, but all at the discretion of the officer. Regardless of what options she chose to take there were serious consequences for them.Jail is the likely one as cops have god complexes at times.

“but he never did before she drove off the first time”—And that is frankly his own stupidity. He allowed the situation to escalate on his part as well and had he been in control of the situation it would have never gone as far.

“Practically it was not wise for her to drive off, and it’s not something I’d ever do or advise anyone else to do.”—-LOL well I would hope not. Hate to see you on the 5 o’clock news. I would probably be thinking “oh man! He tried the police!”

Then I apologize for my repeat, but I took your “not necessarily” as you saying this is something she would not have to do. According to the law she would. Even the statue you presented does not save her from this as 66-8-125 B still is enough for them to present an arrest. In this case he had reasonable grounds with the suspended license. The refusal to sign really can be considered an afterthought because I am sure he was highly aware of it before asking her to sign the citation. I’m not trying to be argumentative, but I personally don’t see a loophole in the law for her.

There’s nothing in 66-8-125 that permits arrest w/o a warrant for refusing to sign a citation.

“In this case he had reasonable grounds with the suspended license.”

No, her licensed was expired, not suspended. There’s a difference there, but that was even more reason for her to just be compliant..

“I’m not trying to be argumentative, but I personally don’t see a loophole in the law for her.”

I don’t see a loophole either, I see that it’s not against the law to refuse to sign a citation. But she should have settled this disagreement in court, not on the road with highway patrol, especially considering her expired license.

“There’s nothing in 66-8-125 that permits arrest w/o a warrant for refusing to sign a citation.”—Nor did I say there was. What I did say was that 66-8-125 B gives him enough reason to arrest her as it states “To arrest without warrant, the arresting officer must have reasonable grounds, based on personal investigation which may include information from eyewitnesses, to believe the person arrested has committed a crime.”

A per the quote you used, I was not particularly referring to that law but rather the manual so that is my mistake.

“No, her licensed was expired, not suspended.”—Then my mistake as I thought it was suspended.

“I don’t see a loophole either, I see that it’s not against the law to refuse to sign a citation.”—I never said that it was against the law for her to refuse to sign but rather that there are consequences and those include an arrest as per the manual. As per the law the officer really just needed reasonable grounds and we all know how reasonable grounds go.

Well, you did say, “According to the law she would,” which is why I responded that there was nothing under 66-8-125 that permits arrest for refusing to sign something. That statute is the law, not some manual.

“…to believe the person arrested has committed a crime”

This is the key. If refusing to sign is not a crime, then there are no “reasonable grounds” for arrest. Obviously I understand that cops can basically do what they want, but there were still no grounds for arrest…that’s what I’m “arguing,” to be clear.

@resw77
“Well, you did say, “According to the law she would,” which is why I responded that there was nothing under 66-8-125 that permits arrest for refusing to sign something. That statute is the law, not some manual.”—-I also said “A per the quote you used, I was not particularly referring to that law but rather the manual so that is my mistake.” So frankly what is it that you are getting at? As per the manual they are allowed to. As per the law he can argue that it was reasonable for him to arrest her. I am sure they don’t just toss things in a manual they don’t attend to have some type of legal backing on. If they do then quite dumb.

“This is the key. If refusing to sign is not a crime, then there are no “reasonable grounds” for arrest.”—-Is it all that key? We can also take the small part you quoted and say he was reasonable in that he simply “believed” she had committed a crime. It also stands to reason that “committing a crime” can be anything as per their statues. Statue 66-8-125 does not specify any type of crimes or definitions of. It really only says arrests without warrants. So in order to fully say refusing to sign is not a crime then we would need to find a statue regarding crimes to determine such.

“Obviously, but it only permits warrantless arrests if a crime is committed”—-No it permits an arrest if and I quote “the arresting officer must have reasonable grounds, based on personal investigation which may include information from eyewitnesses, to believe the person arrested has committed a crime. “

” In NM, refusal to sign a citation is not a crime.”—I prefer to read to see it for myself , but if you would like to provide such to aid in my search then by all means I welcome it.

“That quote from the statute does not contradict what I stated.”—Actually in a sense it does. You are stating that a crime has to be committed in order for a warrantless arrest. The statue only states that if the arresting officer has reasonable grounds to “believe” the person committed a crime. There is a difference in they committed a crime and the arresting officer believes they did.

“That’s precisely why I said, “please let me know if YOU find something different.”—It does not matter why you said it as I was stating what I prefer to do. Had nothing to do with you are anything else for that matter.

That’s only one part of that provision. The other part, i.e., “based on personal investigation which may include information from eyewitnesses” places an obligation on the officer to verify that a crime was committed. No, it’s not enough to just believe, as you seem to be implying.

“It does not matter why you said it as I was stating what I prefer to do.”

” No, it’s not enough to just believe, as you seem to be implying.”—Nope did not imply that. In fact I have been stating the whole statue for quite some time not bits and pieces from it. The statue states he must have reasonable grounds from his personal investigation.This can be what he smelled or saw. This can include eyewitnesses but is not necessary. If he believes what he smelled or saw constitutes a crime then hey.

“Good for you, but I chose to state why I said it.”—Kudos, but it was an unnecessary statement centered around what you thought I meant by mine.

“Right, and yet you said, “The statue only states that if the arresting officer has reasonable grounds to “believe” the person committed a crime.” No bits and pieces there at all.”—Actually that is a summary of what was said in the actual statue. Not bits and pieces as you have so freely felt entitled to quote yourself.

Now you can pout and argue like a baby over something so meager or you can move on. Apparently you are looking to argue and while I would usually oblige I simply am not in the mood. Though you are free to go on as if you have accomplished something.

@resw77
“No one knows what you’re talking about.”—If you don’t know what I am talking about then admit it for yourself, but don’t assume to know the mindset of others. Here is a link to better help you understand exactly what I am talking about in regards to your assumptions.

I have been more than nice to you in effort to have an honest and intelligent discourse. I guess when you usually debate you usually get by with assumptions and side jabs and remarks as a means to win, but considering I conceded to your main point don’t know what your problem is and why you are being so difficult. *shrugs* If being childish is your thing this congrats you win. 🙂

And another interesting point I wanted to make for someone who claims “No one knows what you’re talking about” You sure as heck have engaged in days long debate over something you just have concluded that you nor anyone else knows what I am talking about. My what time you have on your hands to engage in something so meager. 🙂

If you’re going to quote Tennessee v. Garner at least get it right:
“…when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force only to prevent escape if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.”

In the Tennessee v. Garner case, cops were chasing a unarmed 15 year old and shot him.

She was in a vehicle fleeing police, that’s probable cause to believe she posed a significant threat of death or serious physical injury. Many people have been shot and killed while trying to flee police in a vehicle.

I’d just like to point out that the white cop was assaulted after being the most patient officer in the history of police. If you watch the entire video, not just the clip played by the news, you’d agree.

Maybe you should watch the entire video, instead of congratulating yourselves on finding another example of the ‘white devil’ keeping minorities down. I agree that the officer OF COLOR shouldn’t have fired at the van. But that woman was insane as well. She started driving off before he fired at her, so that’s definitely not why she took off the second time. The first time she was obviously just trying to get away from the cops. You ask these three questions at the end, and it’s obvious what you’re trying to do: absolve her of all responsibility. The minority officer shouldn’t have fired at the van. The woman should be in jail and definitely not have custody of her children. The white cop was assaulted for attempting to make a lawful arrest. Then this ‘mother’ narrowly avoided killing herself, all of her children, the police officers, and dozens of civilians when she went hurtling down the street at 100mph.

To the 2 women who were arguing. Both of you guys arguments have a point but what you both fail to realize is that no one knows his intent before she pulled off the first time. He never stated he was arresting her. He had handed her a ticket, which she did not have to sign. YES, he asked her to wait.. Does she actually have too once a ticket has been issued and license returned to driver. To many yes she does. Maybe to her she didn’t have too. Which could be debated in court in April. The first time she fled, she did not endanger anyone… She drove her car in a law abiding manner which leads me to believe she thought she could leave. He chased her down, she pulled over like normal. At that point he could have taken control and tried to access the situation rather than yelling and intimidating her only to sweet talk her out the car, just to place her under arrest. Which led to the crazy events that later took place. Did she follow the law? No. Did any of the officers, approach the situation correctly? Not at all. The only thing she should be guilty of is speeding and driving without a license, which is normally a fee. And the very first video leaked actually had the officer excusing her, that video has been edited and the original removed from the internet.

This lady was crazy in the begining. First off all, I’m black and I saw that it has got nothing to with the color of her skin. That cop pulled her over because she broke the law (speeding),cop asked her to choose between two options of either paying $126 for speeding or go to court but she refused to choose. It would of not happen if she just chose her option. But instead she refused to cooperate with the officer. The cop told her to stay put because she was not cooperating and that he needed to go back to his car. While he checks on something the lady takes off. Now, that lady shouldnt of taken off when the officer was not finished with her. Being a grown ass women and having her 5 kids in the car that was a bad move on her part because she should of been a role model to her kids and did what the officer said when he pulled her over the first time, not only did she keep on refusing the officer when the first time he pulled her over he was polite and actually quite nice by not charging other offences. BUT she kept on refusing she could of made the situation alot easier if she just freckin COOPERATE!!!…Thus leading to the kids screaming and the son inteferring. Now I dont agree with the officer shooting at the van full of kids thats wrong. But that cop that fired the gun I hope he has been dealt with and the mother that put her kids in danger and refusing an officers order saying that she was scared for her kids and thats the reason she fled might be true but she made the situation worst by refusing a cops request when all she needed to say is “yes officer I choose option 1” but no she instead chose to drive off leading to a 10min chase that will traumatise her kids forever

I am not sure what two women you are referring to, so it might be beneficial to elaborate. As to the officer intent, it really does not matter unless you can prove it. Anyone can speculate his intent until the cows come home, but that does what?

Why did she take off the first time after being told to turn off her car? Possibly because she had possession of pot and wanted to dispose of it. Once she threw it out the window she pulled back over. It’s just a possibility since other drug related items were found in her car.

The officer that shot rounds at her was out of line and was fired as he should have been. The rest of the officers acted correctly. Fleeing the police is a crime, even if it is only for a 1/4 mile. White or Black they all get arrested, no special case for her. Then she locks herself in the car, yeah, don’t blame them for breaking the window after her son just got finished attacking the officer. Then she takes off again. Not a smart women. Had nothing to do with race in this situation. It sucks that their are horrible stereotypes out there about blacks,it is sad that she will only heighten this stereotype with her actions and it is even sadder that people who’s hearts are so filled with hate and racism that they would write an article like this. Sad world we live in.

99% of you on this blog are dillusional, SHE BROKE THE LAW!!! Easily could have ended with her signing the citation, “thank you soooo much Officer for overlooking my EXPIRED LISCENSE!!! I’ll get that fixed right away. I didn’t realize I was speeding. have a nice day!!” No, she had to have an attitude. SHE WAS WRONG, ON SOOOO MANY LEVELS, I HOPE SHE GETS JAIL TIME AND LOSES HER EBT BABIES TO THE STATE!!

Oriana, you are the biggest idiot for running from the cops, playing the race card won’t help you this time, what a wonderful example you are proving to be for your kids!!! If the cop was black, would you have felt more comfortable? maybe they should give you that option when you get pulled over. “Hello, Ma’am, the reason I pulled you over is for speeding, you clocked at 71 mph in a 55 mph zone, could you please show me your license, insurance and registration? And also, would you like a officer of your color present?”

Safety sites advise women pulled over by police in remote sections of highway, to tell the officer they are afraid to open the window, and ask to be followed to a populated public area. Imposters have pretended to be policeman and gotten women to open car windows and door based on the appearance of a legal stop in a remote area. Black women in the South must fear being stopped out of an highway, more than white women. Ferrell’s ‘attitude’ was justified by Black perceptions of white policemen as being potentially dangerous to their children and themselves. Race matters here because Blacks often are not treated like Whites in stops by white policemen. On this board, there is a lot of denial of this, but the difference in perception of whites and blacks in such a situation are real. So are the fear women of any race have of being stopped in a remote area by a strange, police or not.

What an idiot this woman is, putting her kids, the police officers, and the public in danger all because she inexplicably refused comply with a single lawful command given by a peace officer. Why didn’t she just sign the ticket and get on her way? Only she knows for sure, but what the video clearly shows is that, throughout the entire encounter, the trooper treated her with the utmost respect, even though she demonstrated willful disregard for the safety of others. Had I been the officer, I would have given her an opportunity to comply, and then if she refused to, I would’ve tasered her for resisting arrest and obstructing justice, especially after she attempted to flee. To those who say the second officer shouldn’t have fired at the tires, I agree. That’s why he was later fired. But the main issue is that instead of signing the citation and ending the police encounter peacefully, she chose to commit multiple felonies through evading and assaulting the police officers and potentially killing herself, her kids, and law-abiding motorists. I hope that child abuser spends many decades behind bars so an incident as appalling and preventable as this never happens again.

This woman is a complete whackjob, and plus she is also a consummate liar. But hey, don’t just take my word for it, ask her babies daddies. That is if you can find them. One more reason why I stay the hell outta Tennessee. What a dumbass.

People need to take responsibility for their actions, and show their children that there are consequences. She was speeding and driving with an expired license. Sign the ticket to pay the fine and move on. Instead she put the police officers, innocent by-standers, AND her children in danger. Senseless. When an officer tells you to do something, do it. Period! Just because you’re a person if color does NOT mean you should get a pass on following the law.

It seems to me that the police actions in this incident had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the fact that Ferrell and her children are black. If you are speeding at 71 in a 55 mph zone you are likely to be stopped by the police. If you drive away in the middle of a stop you are very likely to be arrested. If you resist arrest there is likely to be some use of physical force against you.

AND the cop who fired was NOT firing at the idiotic woman OR at any of her idiot children. He was firing at the vehicle’s tyres – quite a different matter. He SHOULDN’T have done that of course (and he has paid a heavy price for doing so) but he was clearly NOT trying to kill or wound Ferrell or her wretched children. AND of course THAT officer didn’t EVEN know that the vehicle’s occupants were black.

Afrofem She was VERY LIKELY to harm someone. Aren’t you even aware that SPEED KILLS, and that SPEEDING KILLS? IT KILLS PEOPLE EVERY DAY. EVERY DAY PEOPLE ARE MAIMED AND KILLED BY PEOPLE LIKE THIS IDIOTIC WOMAN. THAT is why there are speed limits, and penalties for exceeding those limits. It is very evident that this woman is a PERSISTENT DANGER to the public . . . a PUBLIC MENACE. And she was doing this with a vehicle full of her own children! WHAT sane mother exceeds the speed limit by 16 mph with five of her children in the vehicle? Can you imagine the carnage likely to have occurred if she had been involved in a collision at 70+ mph? SHE was the one ALREADY putting her children in SERIOUS danger WELL BEFORE the police pulled her over.

And HOW was she “treated worse”? The police in fact showed EXEMPLARY RESTRAINT during most of this. The cop who stopped her was EXTREMELY and eminently reasonable (and polite) to her DESPITE her exasperatingly stupid behaviour.

Are you seriously suggesting that WHITE MALES who exceed the speed limit by 16 mph DON’T get pulled by the police? Plenty of them ARE, as ANY REASONABLE PERSON knows and will acknowledge. But there are VERY FEW (if any) white males who would be STUPID ENOUGH to refuse to sign the citation when pulled, refuse to turn off their engine and then (insanely) drive off as soon as the policeman goes back to his vehicle. WHAT did she imagine she was doing? WHAT did she think that would achieve?

Abagond What you write about this incident and the issues arising from it is full of distortions and irrelevances. For example you point out that “In Tennessee v Garner (1985), the Supreme Court ruled that police cannot shoot fleeing, unarmed suspects.” Yes, that “police cannot shoot fleeing, unarmed suspects” BUT NOT that police cannot shoot at THE VEHICLES of fleeing unarmed suspects. Incidentally, it was ALREADY clear that Ferrell was NOT a mere “suspect” but a PERPETRATOR (and a DANGEROUS PERPETRATOR at that).

Abagond And I was naive enough to take your word for it that “In Tennessee v Garner (1985), the Supreme Court ruled that police cannot shoot fleeing, unarmed suspects.” No sooner did I post my LAST comment than I read the comment from “James” who makes it clear that the judgment in Tennessee v Garner DOES NOT say that at all. So in reality you are either seriously confused or else simply a liar.

michaeljonbarker If you DO indeed habitually drive at 90 ANYWHERE (let alone in 55mph zones) then you are a PUBLIC MENACE and should be in prison, preferably for the rest of your life. It’s PLAINLY RIDICULOUS to try to say that “she ran because she was afraid for her children” when her running OBVIOUSLY ENDANGERED her children, but then I suppose a criminal moron like you (who drives at 90) WOULDN’T EVEN be able to understand that.

You say “The police are violence.”

YOU are violence. Speeding is an act of violence – and in fact the MAIN CAUSE of violent injury and death in the United States (and indeed on THE ENTIRE PLANET).

michaeljonbarker Propositions which make “great lines for a T-shirt” (it IS “T-shirt” by the way, and not “tee shirt” – it has NOTHING to do with golf . . . lol!) generally do so because they succinctly express important truths.

Are you SERIOUSLY trying to deny that speeding is an act of violence? I would have assumed that EVEN a moron like you isn’t THAT stupid.

And “staying off the roads” of course ISN’T an option for the majority of people (as EVEN an imbecile like you perfectly well knows) – quite apart from which a high proportion of those who are killed or maimed by speeding vehicles aren’t EVEN “on the roads” when hit. Many are killed or maimed by speeding vehicles which mounted THE SIDEWALK. In the area where I live two people have recently been run down and killed by motor vehicles – BOTH victims were ON the sidewalk when run down.

Herneith Your “staying off the roads” of course ISN’T an option for the majority of people (as presumably EVEN a moron like you perfectly well knows) – quite apart from which a high proportion of those who are killed or maimed by speeding vehicles aren’t EVEN “on the roads” when hit. Many are killed or maimed by speeding vehicles which mounted THE SIDEWALK. In the area where I live two people have recently been run down and killed by motor vehicles – BOTH victims were ON the sidewalk when run down.

“dislike hearing the truth and therefore dismiss it as “ranting and raving” – but present NO counter-argument, no argument OF ANY KIND WHATSOEVER.”—So what argument have you presented that deserves a counter? You are pretty comical no doubt, but a lucid argument worthy of seriousness….NOOOO. You want to emotionally appeal to a speeder. Heck half the officers I follow behind are already speeding in the 90s and thus don’t pull me over for going the same long as I am behind them.

“Are you SERIOUSLY trying to deny that speeding is an act of violence?”—Legally speeding is not listed as a violent crime. It is a civil issue not some act of violence.

“aren’t EVEN “on the roads” when hit.”—if they are in a car texting and hitting the individual walking on the side of the road ultimately killing both of them. Meh

sharinalr YOU seem to have swallowed the bottle of vodka and gone to sleep ALREADY, and to have written your “comment” IN your sleep lol. It is almost a MODEL of incoherence. And, amongst other things, you clearly do not understand what is meant when something is referred to as being a “civil issue” or a “civil matter.” When something is described as being “a civil matter” what this means is that one can, for example, be SUED over it, but not PROSECUTED. However actions by the courts for speeding ARE (in general) of course PROSECUTIONS. That is WHY one speaks (CORRECTLY speaks) of a driver as having CONVICTIONS for speeding.

“Heck half the officers I follow behind” – if you are following them I suppose you WOULD be BEHIND them lol!

You claim “half the officers I follow behind are already speeding in the 90s” – this is of course VERY OBVIOUS BS. But in any case what relevance would this have even if it WERE true?

And WHAT is “—if they are in a car texting and hitting the individual walking on the side of the road ultimately killing both of them. Meh” supposed to mean?

“nd, amongst other things, you clearly do not understand what is meant when something is referred to as being a “civil issue” or a “civil matter” etc.”—You really should read up on the law dear. If you are speeding, you are in violation of civil traffic laws. Civil matters (though I specifically said civil issues) is not only about being sued. You get caught speeding, you go to court, or just pay the ticket. You are likely not going to jail and it won’t be on your criminal record. At most you get a suspended license.

“That is WHY one speaks (CORRECTLY speaks) of a driver as having CONVICTIONS for speeding”—No one says that.

“if you are following them I suppose you WOULD be BEHIND them lol!”—Not necessarily. I could be behind three other cars rather than directly behind the cops or even following them.

“this is of course VERY OBVIOUS BS. But in any case what relevance would this have even if it WERE true?”—Nope. I have FOLLOWED BEHIND several officers going past the speed limit. This is not unusual as they know they have little or no repercussions because of it. You really have a delusion about cops being law bidding citizens. Meh.

“if they are in a car texting and hitting the individual walking on the side of the road ultimately killing both of them. Meh” supposed to mean?”—Exactly what it says. People get the same treatment from a driver driving the speed limit and just not even looking at the dang road. Lay off the Vodka already.The first step is admitting you have a problem.

sharinalr As I have observed before, it tends to be VERY hard work arguing with people who, like you, are EXTREMELY IGNORANT as well as extremely stupid. There are laws relating to civil matters as opposed to STATUTORY OFFENCES. There are statutory OFFENCES which are PROSECUTABLE OFFENCES but are not CRIMINAL offences. Some driving offences fall into this category.

As for your “People get the same treatment from a driver driving the speed limit and just not even looking at the dang road” is that meant to be some kind of argument? For a start by “driving the speed limit” do you mean driving WITHIN the speed limit or EXCEEDING the speed limit? I will assume you mean the latter, and if so this is like saying “people who get STABBED to death get the same treatment as people who are SHOT dead, therefore shooting someone dead can’t be a crime.” You are completely absurd.

sharinair And of course speed is ALMOST INVARIABLY at least a MAJOR CONTRIBUTORY FACTOR in ALMOST ALL fatal “road accidents” – it is a comparatively rare event for someone struck by a vehicle travelling at under 20 miles per hour to die as a consequence – in other words SPEED KILLS.

Yeah Yeah. It has been such a struggle conversing with you when you are EXTREMELY IGNORANT as well as extremely stupid. I mean I gave you a link to dispute you what more do you want? I hope you aren’t looking for me to play into your strawman argument. I might.

“Some driving offences fall into this category.”—We are not talking about what some driving offenses are we are talking about your idea that speeding is a violent crime and no where does it say it is. You can get a CIVIL traffic violation IE civil issue. No law lists it as such.

“do you mean driving WITHIN the speed limit or EXCEEDING the speed limit?”–Yeah you should never question any ones intelligence. ““driving the speed limit” means driving the speed limit. ie if the limit is 55 then they are driving 55. SMH.

“You are completely absurd”—Not really. You are acting like speeding is the ultimate offense. It’s not.

” MAJOR CONTRIBUTORY FACTOR in ALMOST ALL fatal “road accidents” – it is a comparatively rare event for someone struck by a vehicle travelling at under 20 miles per hour to die as a consequence – in other words SPEED KILLS.”—SO…” In 2016, speeding killed 10,111 people, accounting for more than a quarter (27%) of all traffic fatalities that year.” and there is

“The study focused on the 65,000 fatal accidents that occurred in the U.S. over the last two years, identifying 10 percent as the result of some form of distracted driving – in line with federal and other insurance industry estimates.

But what the research found next came as a big surprise. It identified 62 percent of the crashes as the result of simply being “lost in thought.” That might mean failing to recognize a dangerous curve in the road, running into the back of another vehicle, surging through a red light or some other driver error. By comparison, only 12 percent of fatal accidents covered by the data were blamed on some form of mobile phone use.

“Distracted driving is any activity that takes your eyes off the road, your hands off the wheel, or your mind off your primary task of driving safely,” said Smith. “We looked at what law enforcement officers across the country reported when they filled out reports on fatal crashes and the results were disturbing. We hope the data will encourage people to avoid these high-risk behaviors that needlessly increase their risk of being involved in a fatal crash.”

sharinair You really DO seem to have consumed a bottle of vodka (and THEN some, lol).

You say “I mean I gave you a link to dispute you what more do you want” (is THAT supposed to be a sentence, lol?) . . . well, apparently you THINK you did. Where WAS this famous link? You HAVE managed to give a link NOW (an IRRELEVANT one, inevitably). Evidently you are unable to present a valid argument of your own (or EVEN, as we have ALREADY seen, to construct a coherent sentence) so you are reduced to instead copying-and-pasting tracts from elsewhere, BUT tracts which you EVIDENTLY haven’t EVEN managed to READ properly.

sharinair A further point: I wrote “That is WHY one speaks (CORRECTLY speaks) of a driver as having CONVICTIONS for speeding” in reply to which YOU commented (absurdly) “—No one says that.”

I therefore quote the following:

“If you are stopped for a traffic offense in New Mexico, you will face an immediate decision: plead guilty and pay the fine, or set a court date to “challenge” the citation. You will have to make this decision on the side of the road, without a chance to consider the consequences, and without the opportunity to seek legal advice and counsel. There is a lot at stake.

Here is what you need to know:

If you choose to plead guilty at the roadside and pay the fine, you will be CONVICTED. You will drive away from the traffic stop with a fine to pay, instructions on paying, and a traffic conviction about to go on your driving record. The citation will likely be transmitted directly to the New Mexico Motor Vehicle Division, where it will be reported to your homestate, (the state that issued your driver’s license) and posted to the Interstate Data Base. In many cases, it will cost you points on your driving record. Federal law also requires every state to report all CONVICTIONS for CDL holders to the Commercial Driver’s License Information System (CDLIS).”

I’m not an expert in legislation, especially in its Anglo-Saxon forms that are based on case issues — contrary to principals of variable case decisions based on general civil and criminal code in the country I’m living, but the discussion seems to become less and less fruitful and the milieu is getting more and more toxic. In fact, all we can see are just assumptions and interpretations.

The case is, however, fitting the general situational frame of a conflict between representatives of different groups.

My vision is that the police forces are tended to be suspicious, and they have all the rights and reasons to be, because the New Mexico is likely to be one of routes for human / drug trafficking. To see a woman with too many children, many of whom are underage, fleeing a police is a good reason to suppose that there is something wrong about it.

My opinion is that she was driven by instincts and he was driven by his duty and reasonable suspicions.

Am I biased? Well, it’s easy to check just by envisioning a conflict situation replacing the group identities of its participants for a bias check, e. g.

What would be your attitude to and interpretation of the situation if Oriana were White and De Tavis were Black?
(My first thought is that an officer had misused his authority,,, but then, she fled away… a White woman fleeing a Black officer in a car with several underage children at a cross-border region should be checked and stopped…)
What would be your attitude and assumptions if they both were Black?
(Same as above).
What would be your attitude and assumptions if they both were White?
(Same as above)

This works with another conflicts based on group identity, too. In fact, this is about , so I don’t think the main vein of this story is interracial, it’s more about biology, genderк

“sharinair Hasn’t it EVEN occurred to you to ask yourself in WHAT jurisdiction this incident involving Oriana Ferrell occurred?”—Why should I? You weren’t even talking about New Mexico until recent. You were talking about speeding is an act of violence, yet you are so busy trying to prove how smart you are you managed to avoid addressing the falsehood of that entirely.

“apparently does not exist in New Mexico law”—Of course not. It is an absolute speed limit state. Like mine. Which puts me in the unique position to argue what really happens.

Your first quote still does not say it, but also your first quote is false. You can explain at that point your reason for speeding and the officer determines what exactly to ticket you for. If you truly want to “challenge” it you go to court, but a court date is set for you upon giving you the ticket whether you wish to challenge or not. You are not “convicted. You can’t get a conviction without pleading guilty and that is generally made aware by paying a ticket or showing up in court.

Yeah. I do believe his approach was an effort to explain it in lay terms to the masses, but kind of a fail. Let me do the honors of correcting him.
“You will drive away from the traffic stop with a fine to pay, instructions on paying, a court date, and points taken from your license.”
Also, you do realize that is a database for actual crimes, right? Like fingerprinting and all that doesn’t happen when you get a ticket? Ultimately, his advice is non-residents. But….

“PLEASE NOTE the words “CONVICTED” and “CONVICTIONS” lol.”—You still hold the title for complete idiot. And I just can’t help pointing out why. NONE of what you quoted states conviction for speeding. The article basically is talking about any stop and you might pass with that, but both articles below should highlight the actual laws and under what circumstances “convicted” or “conviction” would apply. “A New Mexico driver can be convicted of “reckless driving” for driving in a manner that puts people or property at risk.” And “A first-time speeding violator is looking at up to $300 in fines. The exact fine amount depends on the circumstances, including how many miles over the speed limit the motorist was going.” Basically, reckless diving is conviction worthy and speeding is a moving violation. You are arguing speeding. You have not proven any other point other than Herneith’s which is that you are a comical.

A Russian Nagpo Your comment is very interesting. May I say that for some of us “the main vein” is in fact not about ANY of these issues?

For example I don’t know whether you read any of the recent “exchange of views” (lol) between “sharinair” and myself, but (as it seems to me) the differences THERE don’t have much (if anything) to do with “race” or biology or gender or age but are simply a matter of our fundamental difference in attitude on the general issue of road safety (and of course the issue of vehicular speeding in particular).

In fact, having written that I realise that there is also in all probability a difference in UNDERLYING ATTITUDE to the police (and also, probably, to authority in general).

Sharinair WHY should you consider in what jurisdiction this incident occurred?!! Are you joking? It occurred in New Mexico – and IN NEW MEXICO LAW the concept which you try to invoke and on which you attempt to place such weight (of a speeding offense being “a civil matter”) just to repeat DOES NOT EXIST.

“There in NOTHING is ANY of the sources cited to indicate that if a person is found guilty of a speeding offense in New Mexico they are not THEREBY CONVICTED REPEAT CONVICTED of that offense”—Your right because that was not my point. My point was to show that it doesn’t say it is conviction and point to the actual terminology for what it is considered. A bit hypocritical seeing as none of your sources mention speeding. Oh well. What I sourced is the actual law and not some guy trying to get clients interpretation of the law. Funny watching you argue that.

Read very slowly okay. I stated “Why should I? You weren’t even talking about New Mexico until recent.” Your argument was not even based on new mexico law. If it were you might have brought that up at some point, but you didn’t until I sourced something that contradicted you. You stated, “Speeding is an act of violence” but this isn’t true in New Mexico and it has yet to be seen as true in any state. Acts of violence result in criminal court convictions, likelihood of jail time, and a criminal record (fingerprints and all). Speeding isn’t going to get you that .This really isn’t a hard concept to get.

“(of a speeding offense being “a civil matter”) just to repeat DOES NOT EXIST.”—I do remember repeatedly stating civil issue. My full quote “It is a civil issue not some act of violence” You wanted to argue the legal side of it, but that doesn’t change that it is still a civil issue. I leave you with the definition of civil.

Sharinair YOU are the one who wanted to stress that speeding is supposedly “a civil issue” as if (were that IN FACT true) it would be relevant to the discussion. But now that your bluff has been called on that, and you have been exposed, you (surprise, surprise!) want to change the subject, lol.

Sharinair “You weren’t even talking about New Mexico until recent”? WHAT language are you trying to write in, lol?

OK, I’ll take it you mean “until RECENTLY.”

I was VERY CLEARLY talking about the Ferrell incident in New Mexico FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. THAT incident is what is under discussion here on this page, or had you SOMEHOW not noticed that, lol?

But I WAS making a very general point about (global) road safety and speeding – NOTHING to do with ANY legal technicalities.

YOU then weighed in with a completely spurious, supposed (but in fact, in this context, NONEXISTENT in New Mexico) concept of a “civil issue.”

Well, if you start invoking (as YOU did) abstruse (and indeed nonexistent, in fact IMAGINARY) legal technicalities you then HAVE TO take into consideration the question “what is the relevant jurisdiction?” – AND THE RELEVANT JURISDICTION IN THIS CASE IS, OF COURSE, NEW MEXICO.

At what point does speeding become an act of violence? One mile over the limit? Five miles?

If someone needs to go five miles over the limit for less than three minutes in order to safely and quickly pass a slower-moving vehicle, and as soon as the passing maneuver is completed, the driver returns to the posted speed limit, have they committed an act of violence?

If someone is speeding, on whom are they perpetrating an act of violence? If that speeding individual makes it home without hitting anyone with their car, whom have they committed violence against?

Is it a greater act of violence to do 80 on an interstate where the speed limit is 60 or to do 40 in a 20 mph elementary school zone? Or are both acts equally violent?

Is there a distinction in your opinion between a violent act and a hazardous act?

Also, is there a particular reason your caps-lock key gets stuck so frequently?

“But there are VERY FEW (if any) white males who would be STUPID ENOUGH to refuse to sign the citation when pulled, refuse to turn off their engine and then (insanely) drive off as soon as the policeman goes back to his vehicle.”

Can you provide statistics to prove that fewer white men do this than black women?

“WHAT did she imagine she was doing?”

Who do you think has greater reason to fear that a cop who pulls them over on an isolated rural highway might rape them in front of their children: white men or black women?

Unfortunately for you, my bluff hasn’t been called and I still have not changed the subject. But you did when you repeatedly focused on the “civil issue” which you repeatedly tried to change to “civil matter” to argue YOUR point, ignoring several attempts to get you on topic of speeding being an act of violence (your original claim), and now trying to argue that I should read your mind and know you meant NM even though you stated US and the entire planet. That my dear is grade A subject changing and deflection etc.

“I was VERY CLEARLY talking about the Ferrell incident in New Mexico FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.”—I do remember quoting what of yours I was responding to and it was none of your “very beginning” comments. However, of what did respond to your response to MJB in which you claimed, “Speeding is an act of violence – and in fact the MAIN CAUSE of violent injury and death in the United States (and indeed on THE ENTIRE PLANET).”

You weren’t talking about New Mexico at this point (See above). If you are making a general statement, then you basically open the door to be exposed to any and every state and that still refutes what you say despite you now wanting to jump to NM to save yourself. You are still wrong as nothing states speeding is an act of violence. This is why you hold on to me saying “civil issue” (which I standby all I said and have explained why and provided you a definition, so you know what civil means) because you have nothing to support your idea that it is an act of violence.

“Well, if you start invoking (as YOU did) abstruse (and indeed nonexistent, in fact IMAGINARY) legal etc.” Actually no. If I am responding to something you posted, it is not my job to figure out what jurisdiction you mean when you basically were saying it was an act of violence the planet over. You already made the claim and don’t get to have “do overs” because you embarrassed yourself trying to show how smart you are just to show how smart you ain’t. Own it and do better.

Solitaire A very good question, and there may well be no simple, clear-cut answer to it . . . but then the same would have to be said about almost every other major concept used in the evaluation of human behavior, e.g. “exploitation” or “abuse.” When does behavior become either of those? Likewise with “harassment” or “mistreatment” or any of the other key concepts with which courts and other agencies perpetually have to deal.

However, interesting as your questions relating to speed limits undoubtedly are, I would have assumed it to be obvious that I wasn’t talking about any such matters as posted speed limits or indeed ANY such artificial and of necessity arbitrary definitions of “speeding” or “violence” (i.e. legal definitions) at all. I wasn’t talking about the LAW (which in these matters is the proverbial Dickensian “ass”) but about that rather important little thing sometimes referred to as “social morality.”

sharinair You are becoming more and more confused. It was YOU, not I, who tried to make an issue of its being supposedly a “civil issue” (a concept which, to repeat, seems not EVEN to exist in the relevant jurisdiction).

Solitaire She gives no impression at all of fearing any such thing. If she WAS inclined to fear any such thing WHY would she be cruising around in rural New Mexico with her vanload of screaming idiot children anyway?

“I wasn’t talking about the LAW (which in these matters is the proverbial Dickensian “ass”) but about that rather important little thing sometimes referred to as “social morality.””

Ok. Please explain the reasoning through which social morality deems an act of speeding in which no one was hurt to be an act of violence. Against whom was the violence committed, according to social morality?

I’m still waiting for the statistics that show black female drivers cause police chases more than white male drivers.

Solitaire Incidentally, do you REALLY imagine it’s OK for someone “to go five miles over the limit” (I take it you REALLY mean 5 MILES PER HOUR over the limit) “to safely [sic!] and quickly pass a slower-moving vehicle”?

It may not be strictly legal, but I grew up in a rural area. If you are on a two-lane highway, you have to go into the opposite-bound lane to pass. Of course you want to make sure there is no oncoming traffic, but once you are in that lane it is better to execute the passing maneuver as quickly as you can safely do so, because you want to get back into your proper lane as soon as possible. I’m not talking about zipping around someone in excess of 20 or 30 miles an hour, just up to 5 mph.

Which honestly if your speedometer calibration is a little off, you could easily be doing 5 mph over the speed limit all the time without knowing it. How often do you think.cops bother to give tickets to someone who is only 5 mph over the limit?

I generally try to keep within the posted speed limit. I’m not one of these people who has a heavy foot. But I’m not fanatical about it, either. I’d honestly rather be passed by someone going over the limit who otherwise is a good driver and keeps a safe distance than to have someone riding my bumper with no margin of error.

Solitaire If your speedometer is inaccurate to such an extent your vehicle is in an illegally unsafe condition and should NOT be on the road AT ALL. And if police are failing to book drivers who are exceeding the designated limit by 5 miles per hour they are guilty of a serious dereliction of their duty to the public.

Your fixation on the topic of speeding is what is known as a deflection. You are trying to deflect attention away from the fact that you cannot prove white male drivers run from the police less often than black female drivers, that you cannot prove Oriana Farrell is a violent criminal, and that you have engaged in racist tactics in your attempt to do so.

You also seriously need to lay off your caps-lock. Please, if you feel the need to emphasize every fifth word, use the asterisk to code for italics — it’s much easier on the eyes.

I am going to ask if you have trouble reading or if you are reading too fast? Honestly, I already know you are confused which is why you don’t get it.

I stated: Legally speeding is not listed as a violent crime. It is a civil issue not some act of violence.

In response to: “Are you SERIOUSLY trying to deny that speeding is an act of violence?”

It was you who took that one statement and made your focus on “civil matter” and not speeding being an act of violence. Do you get it now or are you still lost?

I am going to list 2 consecutive comments of you talking about “civil matter” but do not address speeding as an act of violence, knowing it was false. If anything, I had to repeatedly correct you on what I said, which is not the same.

“You HAVE managed to give a link NOW (an IRRELEVANT one, inevitably).” —I gave two links by this point and the argument is quite valid as you are not able to refute it as per your obsessive need to call names. As to writing a sentence to suit your desire of perfect, lets talk about that when you are yourself failing to use perfect grammar.

“so you are reduced to instead copying-and-pasting tracts from elsewhere, BUT tracts which you EVIDENTLY haven’t EVEN managed to READ properly.”—I copied and paste them to ensure you read them as you likely did not click on the links to read them. At that point you claimed, “MAJOR CONTRIBUTORY FACTOR in ALMOST ALL fatal “road accidents” and both sources refute it by saying it is not, but only 27% of major accidents. So, it looks like you didn’t read properly and that vodka you have been consuming is really impairing this ability.
Even now you still won’t address it because you can’t.

“a concept which, to repeat, seems not EVEN to exist in the relevant jurisdiction”—You can repeat this as you like, but even in her jurisdiction it is a civil issue. I already explained why with sources.

Solitaire She was in an entirely open area in plain view for hundreds of yards in every direction and with other vehicles passing almost continuously. It was NOT a secluded spot. When she drove off the first time she then stopped in a spot which was in those terms essentially no different from the spot in which she was first stopped. IF she had been in a secluded spot initially and had then driven off and stopped in an UNSECLUDED and open spot further on this might have made some sort of sense . . . but that WASN’T the situation and that ISN’T what she did.

If the primary content of this exchange of words between you and that sentient being is a road safety, then it is very much off-topic on this site which, as I see it, is generally dedicated to Black [counter]racism — although some visitor do see it otherwise.

The being you have mentioned is definitely not the wisest or the kindest or even the wittiest one on the planet; in fact, that username is a little bit insane, but, again, I don’t unSderstand why you have to communicate with that username — especially while every word exchange makes your life less comfortable and your achieving of results or decision-making becomes the more difficult, the more you communicate with that– uh– being.

I mean, that username feeding on your emotions is mostly all about groundless assumptions plus some lies with a little stench of death.

Speaking on death, I wouldn’t project my attitude to a single sentient being who had done me or my dear-and-near wrong and represents a certain gtoup — in your case, the speeding driver who had killed your relative — to all representatives of the same group — e. g. the speeding drivers of the world.

“sharinair No you didn’t. You are just being silly.”—Yes I did and every link I provided plus these pretty much shows I have. That is the beauty of online, the ability to go back, link, and quote people. 😊

“My “fixation” with speeding, far from being any kid of deflection, has to do with the fact that my grandfather was killed by a speeding driver you vile disgusting little pig.”—It is a deflection when you are using it to bypass proving your claims. Though I listed your deflections and your fixation with speed wasn’t one I used.

Oh an to add. My name is not being. If you are going to refer to me you use my name. If you can not respectfully use it then by all means stop fixating on me. If it continues I will address it with abagond. Because you failed to read the comment policy you failed to realize that after repeat warning from him you risk ban. If it is insane to quote people words that they thought no one would notice because they wanted to push a lie. Then so be it. 🙂

“My “fixation” with speeding, far from being any kind of deflection, has to do with the fact that my grandfather was killed by a speeding driver, you vile disgusting little pig.”

I’m very sorry to hear that and you have my condolences. I too have lost people I loved in the same way.

But please don’t tell me when a woman should reasonably be afraid. I know someone who was raped and killed by a white man masquerading as a police officer, and she was abducted by him on the side of a very heavily-trafficked multiple-lane interstate in one of the largest cities in the U.S.

Again, I am sorry for your loss, but I’m curious to know if you make it a habit to leave similar comments on articles about white drivers who were caught speeding.

See? To those two beings it’s not about justice, well-being or at least any reasonableness. To them, it’s all about ‘girl power’ and the similar type of bs these two [unlikely to be sentient] beings are trying to represent projecting their narcissism — like reading only ‘the wittiest’ when it’s clearly written ‘not the wittiest being on the planet’, or trying to smear clear thinking with their instinctive interpretations and phantasms.

As any being of such type, they like to try to manipulate with others’ feelings or to insult the others, but they don’t seemingly like getting their paybacks.

Such type of beings can be found among any race or gender, though the type of passive aggressiveness those two beings has demonstrated is more common for elder women. No surprise, since online communities are often structured and work in a sort of tribal way (the same old story of ‘patriarchy vs matriarchy’).

But they don’t seemingly distinguish ‘being a threat’ from ‘being disgusted’. Well, let them remain among the stench of their illusions, it’s beneath my dignity to contact them.

Solitaire WHY wouldn’t I “leave similar comments on articles about white drivers who were caught speeding”? YOU seem to be the one persistently inserting racial considerations into this “discussion” – not I.

You seem to believe that your abusive and obsessive name calling requires that a person accept it. You also believe that abusive and obsessive name calling is not name calling but the readers false interpretation of it or part of ones imagination. Yet you are quoted doing it. It’s not about girl power, but about you as a grown man using name calling in a debate with a teenager and then getting upset that you were quoted doing such. Yet you run to get a threads just to gather allies for some cause.

Sad reality is that most of you comments are projections of the very things you believe solitaire and I are doing. Even saddier is we comment and post showing otherwise.

” it’s beneath my dignity to contact them.”—The sad reality is you are in contact, but using other people to do so. Just because you @ someone else and try to speak about either of us doesn’t mean you are taking the high road and proving your vast signification. What you are proving to people is that you are simply using them to attack another commenter and engaging in discourse with you would only lead to that. Furthermore you are showing to be really emotional cry baby. I, however, will promptly tell them that you are whining about being caught in a lie and had no excuse for it. So ever since you been running from thread to thread hoping someone will be on your side. That is when you aren’t trying to pit commenters (assuming their race) against each other.

The fact that here you are at a black-owned blog with a focus on black issues and a black-majority readership, yelling in all caps that:“the police actions in this incident had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the fact that Ferrell and her children are black.”

and this gem:

“Are you seriously suggesting that WHITE MALES who exceed the speed limit by 16 mph DON’T get pulled by the police? Plenty of them ARE, as ANY REASONABLE PERSON knows and will acknowledge. But there are VERY FEW (if any) white males who would be STUPID ENOUGH to refuse to sign the citation when pulled, refuse to turn off their engine and then (insanely) drive off as soon as the policeman goes back to his vehicle.”

in which you claim that white men would not be as stupid to do what this black woman did — with no proof. You’re thereby setting up an argument that white men are more law-abiding, when the truth is that of course there are white men who have done the same thing when stopped for speeding, and some who have done worse.

“but about you as a grown man using name calling in a debate with a teenager and then getting upset that you were quoted doing such.”

And furthermore, once you were called out on your treatment of the teenager, you tried to argue that she was the real abuser so that you could claim to be the victim. You want to talk about narcissism? That’s some classic Cluster B behavior right there!

“it’s beneath my dignity to contact them.”

But not beneath your dignity to call us names and talk smack about us to other people. How old are you, 12? If you’ve got a problem with me, have the dignity and the balls to take it up with me directly and hash it out directly.

Herneith Some people (people like you, for example) dislike hearing the truth and therefore dismiss it as “ranting and raving” – but present NO counter-argument, no argument OF ANY KIND WHATSOEVER.

You’re right. In many instances I dislike hearing the truth. One of those instances occurred a few days ago when I went to the doctor. I found out I had chronic hemorrhoids which had to be cauterized as the only cure! In that instance, I did indeed hate the truth. In reference to you though, that isn’t the case. I do not have to ‘engage’ you in ‘debate’. If others wish to do so, that is their prerogative. Personally, I’d rather go shopping.

Plus you throw in the word “incoherently” but OF COURSE DON’T actually cite any kind of incoherence in what I wrote.

Your whole posts are incoherent.

You are an idiot.

It takes one to know one as it were.

Herneith Your “staying off the roads” of course ISN’T an option for the majority of people (as presumably EVEN a moron like you perfectly well knows)

Take the bus! Even a moron such as myself knows this! What kind of lunatics do you live around?

Those five extra miles per hour kill and maim a lot of people..

You can also cause death and mayhem by driving too slow on a highway for instance. I think the lesson to be had is to drive safely being aware of your surroundings, drive defensively.

Solitaire What conceivable basis do you have for any implication that I ONLY criticize BLACK speeding drivers?

I’ll give you that. Someone triggered your obsession with speed and it was down hill from there. I know people, who have been killed by drunk drivers, t boned by crappy drivers running yellow lights, I myself was knocked down by an inebriated driver at a red light(I rolled out of the way so sustained not apparent injuries). Go for therapy to rid yourself of this obsession, it’s not healthy.

Solitaire WHY would my writing “the police actions in this incident had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the fact that Ferrell and her children are black” mean that I would NOT be likely to criticize speeding drivers who happen to be white? You of course don’t say.

Because your original focus (before you went off on the tangent of arguing that speeding is a violent act rather than a hazardous act) appeared to be on proving that Oriana Farrell’s race had nothing to do with how she and her children were treated, and you appeared to be trying to demonize her as violent criminal and an idiotic crazy moron, while claiming that no white man would be stupid enough to do what she did.

I have my doubts that you go looking for articles about white drivers who pull similar stunts and argue that “few black people, if any” would be crazy or stupid enough to do what that idiot white male did.

But perhaps you can prove me wrong? If you can link to somewhere online that you made such an argument in the past, that would be sufficient proof for me.

Herneith A point in passing – for a start there are MANY places where there IS NO BUS – but more importantly HOW would taking the bus prevent one from becoming the victim of a speeding driver? You of course don’t say.

I cannot be a mono-racial supremacist, because a) I primary identify myself with my religion, not with my race, or my nation, or my language, or my specie (although a sex and a gender is a part of the religion, too);

b) a mono-racial supremacism is an oxymoron, it always takes ‘a despised other’ to be a supremacist, thus to label anyone as a supremacist one has to be sure about reading the mind accurately — which is not the case here, and,

c) growing up in an average Russian town in 90s doesn’t differ much from a life in a Black American ghetto as it is shown in media, plus Black Americans and some Russians have the similar stories of slavery and post-slavery collective traumas (not to mention the roles the women try to assume in both cultures).

Solitaire You write “while claiming that no white man would be stupid enough to do what she did.” You (of course) misrepresent (whether intentionally or otherwise) what I said, which was “But there are VERY FEW (if any) white males who would be STUPID ENOUGH to refuse to sign the citation when pulled, refuse to turn off their engine and then (insanely) drive off as soon as the policeman goes back to his vehicle.” I DID NOT say that “no white man would be stupid enough to do what she did” which would be a QUITE DIFFERENT proposition.

Solitaire You write “I have my doubts that you go lookingfor articles about white drivers who . . . [etc]”

Of course you are ENTIRELY RIGHT. And I OF COURSE DON’T go looking for for articles about black drivers “who pull similar stunts” EITHER. For a start I rather doubt whether ANY driver (black, white, red, yellow, brown or green) has EVER “pulled a stunt” QUITE like the one Ferrell pulled (I suspect that it is UNIQUE . . . in the full and LITERAL sense of the word “unique”).

And if I DID go looking for such articles I obviously WOULDN’T be looking according to ANY racial criteria.

If you had left out the “if any,” I would concede your point. But what you wrote signifies “at most only a few and quite possibly none.”

And even if I did concede your point about not saying “none,” you would still need to prove that statistically very few white men do this, plus give evidence that fewer white men do this than black women.

And then maybe you can explain why the cops manhandled this woman and shot at her car full of children, but when a white man walked into a prayer meeting at a black church and killed nine people, the cops not only did not shoot at him, but they bought him hamburgers.

A man riding a slow-moving farm tractor led police on a nearly three-mile chase Tuesday after he fled a traffic stop in Brewer, police said.

Around 10:35 a.m., a Brewer police officer pulled over the tractor, which was hauling a big piece of machinery, after he saw it knock over a series of traffic cones in a construction zone on North Main Street, according to Sgt. Nelson Feero Jr.

During the stop, the driver, 41-year-old Todd Hill, got back in the tractor and took off, continuing outbound on North Main Street at a low speed, Feero said.

Several officers began following Hill, who refused to stop for them until he drove — slowly — almost three miles, nearly reaching Eddington.

Hill, who is from Searsport, was arrested and charged with failing to stop for a police officer and driving to endanger.

“And then maybe you can explain why the cops manhandled this woman and shot at her car full of children, but when a white man walked into a prayer meeting at a black church and killed nine people, the cops not only did not shoot at him, but they bought him hamburgers.”

You know PERFECTLY WELL why they “manhandled” her. Having been stopped for speeding at 71 in a 55 zone (and thereby endangering other members of the public, her children and herself) she refused to give the policeman a decision as to whether she would sign the citation or would challenge it. When the cop momentarily went back to his vehicle she drove off, forcing the cop to pursue and to call for assistance. She then pulled over again but (given that she had “fled” once already) the policeman had very good reason to believe that she might drive off again (as indeed SHE DID, driving EXTREMELY dangerously, for example weaving through busy traffic at 50+ mph, having drawn the police into a VERY dangerous chase which at times exceeded 90 mph!).

The officer therefore tried to arrest her, which he had an ABSOLUTELY CLEAR DUTY to do, since she was very evidently a serious danger to the public (AND, to stress once again, to her children and to herself). She then refused to EVEN get out of her vehicle.

The cop (DeTavis) was what in the US is described as a “rookie” – and, probably as a consequence of THAT, and VERY UNFORTUNATELY, continued to put up with this absurd nonsense, instead of doing what experienced police officers ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD would have done, i.e. smash the driver’s window AT ONCE, extract the culprit from her vehicle and IMMEDIATELY handcuff her to eliminate ANY RISK of her driving off AGAIN (and thereby eliminate the risk of her CONTINUING to endanger innocent people).

By the way, was Officer DeTavis (or indeed any of the OTHER police involved in the Ferrell saga) involved in this OTHER incident in the “black church” to which you refer?

Solitaire You don’t know WHAT my “level of outrage” is in relation to the Charleston church massacre. Suffice it to say that there are of course FAR MORE black people killed by motor vehicles than by ALL the perpetrators of mass shootings in US history . . . and yet you condone speeding. Thus your apparent outrage over the Charleston shooting is plainly hypocritical.

“in which you claim that white men would not be as stupid to do what this black woman did — with no proof.”

Yeah, this is a particularly idiotic assertion as there are so many counterexamples: white men literally shooting up the place and being apprehended without being harmed.

Some people truly live in a bubble out of which they have evacuated all fact. Then they accuse YOU of fearing the so-called “truth”.”

It is to be noted that you address yourself NOT TO WHAT I ACTUALLY WROTE but to what SOMEONE ELSE SAID that I wrote.

And if white men CAN indulge in “literally shooting up the place and being apprehended WITHOUT BEING HARMED” (which, however, I doubt) then clearly they are OBVIOUSLY NOT being stupid in the sense in which Oriana Ferrell was being stupid.

How many such “counterexamples” are you in fact able to cite, by the way?

“And if white men CAN indulge in “literally shooting up the place and being apprehended WITHOUT BEING HARMED” (which, however, I doubt) then clearly they are OBVIOUSLY NOT being stupid in the sense in which Oriana Ferrell was being stupid.

“How many such “counterexamples” are you in fact able to cite, by the way?”

Any event of [apparently] similar kind would differ from the rest of events by its cause and effect. Therefore, it’s more complicated than just racial black-and-white counterstance.

To quote myself,

”My vision is that the police forces are tended to be suspicious, and they have all the rights and reasons to be, because the New Mexico is likely to be one of routes for human / drug trafficking. To see a woman with too many children, many of whom are underage, fleeing a police is a good reason to suppose that there is something wrong about it.

My opinion is that she was driven by instincts and he was driven by his duty and reasonable suspicions.

Am I biased? Well, it’s easy to check just by envisioning a conflict situation replacing the group identities of its participants for a bias check, e. g.

a) What would be your attitude to and interpretation of the situation if Oriana were White and De Tavis were Black?
(My first thought is that an officer had misused his authority,,, but then, she fled away… a White woman fleeing a Black officer in a car with several underage children at a cross-border region should be checked and stopped…)

b) What would be your attitude and assumptions if they both were Black?
(Same as above).

c) What would be your attitude and assumptions if they both were White?
(Same as above)

This works with another conflicts based on group identity, too. In fact, this is about , so I don’t think the main vein of this story is interracial, it’s more about biology, genders and age than about a race”.

Solitaire You seem to be unable to grasp the fact that Ferrell IS a dangerous criminal. The video demonstrates that fact very clearly – and she was convicted accordingly, convicted of a dangerous criminal offence.

She SHOULD have been sentenced to a substantial term in prison (which in my country she probably would have been). “She did not kill anyone” – no, but it was a matter of SHEER LUCK that she DIDN’T kill someone, didn’t in fact cause multiple fatalities, including the deaths of herself and her unfortunate children.

It would have been outrageous even if the police were Black and she and her children were White.

SHOOTING AT UNARMED PEOPLE IS NOT RIGHT!!!!! Especially women and children. There might be some exceptions, but this was hardly one of them.

I am not going to engage in mental gymnastics to let the police off the hook. Why the hell should I? Are they holy, sacred beings? They are suppose to keep us safe, not be a menace to society.

And what the hell is it with this idea that women travelling with small children near the Mexican border are dangerous drug criminals? Do you polish your jackboots every morning before you go off to work for ICE or the US Border Patrol?

I am SO glad I am not burdened with the psychological need to see ALL BLACK AMERICANS, no matter how CRIMINALLY IRRESPONSIBLE they may be, in the best possible light, bending over backwards to see their crazy crap as rational behaviour.

Solitaire You STILL haven’t managed to come up with ANY answer at all to the question “What does ANY of it have to do with the Ferrell incident?” (I wonder why, lol. Because there IS none perhaps? Presumably so!).

I was referring to child trafficking, not drug trafficking. Shooting an unarmed people is wrong, but shooting a person suspected in child trafficking is ok for me. If you weigh risks and losses, then it would be better to hurt an innocent citizen than to let a child trafficker go.

The policeman was wrong, bu she was wrong, too.

I wear red or red-green-and-blue sneakers, so there’s nothing to polish.

With the greatest respect, a person sitting at the controls of a motor vehicle ISN’T “unarmed” (unless the vehicle is somehow disabled) – a motor vehicle is, as is often remarked (and not JUST by road safety campaigners) a DEADLY weapon (far MORE deadly than, say, a knife or a small pistol).

You still have not realized that Herneith thinks you are a joke? She will never address anything you say seriously because a) it is no fun and b) a waste of time.

Another thing is you are still trying to use your “emotional” feelings to argue what you feel something is vs what it actually is . A vehicle is only a deadly weapon (like all things) when the intent is to harm. Not just because it exists.

“Yes, a vehicle is considered a deadly weapon in cases where the driver intended to hit another driver or pedestrian. Some driving under the influence cases are also charged as assault with a deadly weapon.”

An armed person? Then it’s a suicide weapon in this case, especially with children on board.

Beware of the lies spread here by the being under the nickname of sharinaIr, for (s?)he is not just about death and decay, but about lies, too.

That being is particularly into lies about other people’s attitude — towards you, towards other persons, etc. That being sees you are feeling some suspicions, so that beings is trying to inforce paranoia, for that beings feeeds on negative feelings (mostly).

Solitaire Where the question is whether a suspect or perpetrator is “armed” (in, for example, the situation in which Officer Montoya fired at the rear tire of Ferrell’s vehicle) Ferrell was for ALL practical purposes NOT unarmed. She was in possession of (and at the controls of) something which is IN FACT a LETHAL WEAPON.

Plus she had ALREADY demonstrated that she was prepared to use that vehicle ILLEGALLY and in a manner which would seriously endanger innocent members of the public (AND, just to reiterate, to endanger her five children and indeed herself).

She had ALSO demonstrated (ALREADY demonstrated, and VERY CLEARLY demonstrated) that her behaviour was likely to be thoroughly irrational and unpredictable.

The point of all this being that in these circumstances the police were FULLY JUSTIFIED in treating her as “armed and dangerous” (as indeed she was).

Solitaire You say “A vehicle is only a deadly weapon (like all things) when the intent is to harm. Not just because it exists.” THAT is obvious drivel. Possession of an assault rifle, say, or a hand grenade, INDUBITABLY constitutes possession of a weapon, REGARDLESS of ANY questions regarding “intent.”

An operational motor vehicle is FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES a WEAPON, regardless of any considerations of intent.

And the fact that the motor vehicle is not designed or manufactured with the INTENTION of its being used as a weapon is AGAIN NO argument. A kitchen knife is, obviously, not originally INTENDED to be used as a weapon. A machete is originally AN AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT. Nonetheless, if you are involved in a “public order situation” carrying one of these items you will be described as having been “armed with a knife” and are therefore VERY likely to be charged and prosecuted accordingly.

“eware of the lies spread here by the being under the nickname of sharinaIr, for (s?)he is not just about death and decay, but about lies, too.”—It is hard to lie when she posted up thread that he was and I quote “entertaining.” Not to mention that she hasn’t taken anything he said seriously.

“That being is particularly into lies about other people’s attitude — towards you, towards other persons, etc. That being sees you are feeling some suspicions, so that beings is trying to inforce paranoia, for that beings feeeds on negative feelings (mostly).”—It isn’t a lie when you quote people. Not to mention I am a long time commenter and she rarely if ever takes trolls seriously. Though I can just post her first comment here as proof.

IKR. I must have really hurt his feelings by quoting him lying. Between you and me he is delusional or optimistic.

“I was sorely disappointed that no one laughed at my tractor examples. and Did you see that my comment to you on the Rich Crazy Asians thread is out of mod?”—Sorry. In catch up mode. Juggling here and my assignment, but definitely will respond in full.

“THAT is obvious drivel. Possession of an assault rifle, say, or a hand grenade, INDUBITABLY constitutes possession of a weapon, REGARDLESS of ANY questions regarding “intent.”—I do believe this is a straw man. If it was drivel then a link would not accompany my statement. Not to mention you were talking about a vehicle correct? That link refutes you. In fact it clearly states, “In criminal law, the term, “deadly weapon” refers to a firearm, or any other object that is used or intended to be used in such a way that it could cause death or serious injury to another human being.” You can have a assault rifle or hand grenade and it isn’t deadly until you intent is to make it as such.

All the other stuff you wrote i don’t have time to respond to in full, but I do believe this link (posting it a second time). Refutes you in full and you are basically arguing with the law which is more legit than you opinion.

sharinair You appear to be contradicting yourself. You write “a vehicle is only a deadly weapon (like all things) when the intent is to harm. Not just because it exists” – but then YOU yourself go on to point out that “some driving under the influence cases are also charged as assault with a deadly weapon.”

Presumably in such cases they are so charged EVEN THOUGH there was NO INTENT to harm.

sharinair My apologies for the mistake in the names. However, it is perhaps understandable (if not completely excusable) in that the two of you evidently suffer at least one of the same mental deficiencies, i.e. the inability to understand DISJUNCTIVE PROPOSITIONS, that is (putting it in layman’s, or layperson’s, terms) an inability to distinguish the word “OR” from the word “AND” lol!

Thus you quote [“In criminal law, the term, “deadly weapon” refers to a firearm, or any other object that is used or intended to be used in such a way that it could cause death or serious injury to another human being”] AS IF you are thereby delivering some sort of killer blow to my argument, WHEREAS it would ONLY create any kind of difficulty for me IF it had ACTUALLY read ” . . . any other object that is used AND intended to be used in such a way that it could cause death or serious injury to another human being.”

But it OF COURSE DOESN’T say that. It says [to repeat] ” . . . or ANY OTHER OBJECT that is used OR [NOT ‘AND’] intended to be used in such a way that it COULD cause death or serious injury to another human being.”

That means that it is classified as a “deadly weapon” IF it is “used in such a way that it could cause death or serious injury to another human being” AND REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT it is INTENDED so to be used.

Thus you have (very neatly, very neatly INDEED) destroyed your own argument.

BECAUSE a motor vehicle UNDOUBTEDLY IS” used in such a way that it could cause death or serious injury to another human being” – INDEED MOTOR VEHICLES DO PRECISELY THAT – AND DO IT FAR MORE OFTEN THAN ANY OTHER KIND OF OBJECT ON THE PLANET – FAR MORE OFTEN THAN FIREARMS OR, SAY, EXPLOSIVES FOR EXAMPLE.

And, on the day in question, ORIANA FERRELL was of course using her vehicle in PRECISELY that way, i.e. in a way which perfectly satisfies your quoted definition of “deadly weapon” – (which is why the police were in fact ENTIRELY JUSTIFIED in making an attempt to disable her vehicle – i.e. in attempting to IN PRACTICAL TERMS disarm her).

That is not a contradiction buddy. The intent is thus to harm if you are operating a vehicle under the influence.

“the inability to understand DISJUNCTIVE PROPOSITIONS, that is (putting it in layman’s, or layperson’s, terms) an inability to distinguish the word “OR” from the word “AND” lol!”—Or it is called not caring.

It is still a deadly blow and this is where I am going to catch you on that reading comprehension issue you have been displaying.

You stated, ” a motor vehicle is, as is often remarked (and not JUST by road safety campaigners) a DEADLY weapon (far MORE deadly than, say, a knife or a small pistol.

The quoted article states:Y es, a vehicle is considered a deadly weapon in cases where the driver intended to hit another driver or pedestrian. Some driving under the influence cases are also charged as assault with a deadly weapon.”

This refutes you because you are saying it is deadly weapon period and it is clear here that intent is a factor of it not being. This also specifically speaks to vehicles which you are whining about.

You quote from the article: “In criminal law, the term, “deadly weapon” refers to a firearm, or any other object that is used or intended to be used in such a way that it could cause death or serious injury to another human being.

Still refutes you. A car sitting in your yard or driving down a road is not being used to” cause death or serious injury to another human being.” An action has to take place with it first for it to be considered a deadly weapon per the quote you thought didn’t “deliver some sort of killer blow to my argument.”

Oh and you can save any and all you typing and caps about ORIANA FERRELL. I stated my opinion on here way up thread years ago when this post was made. If you want to know it read it, but if you are going to assume it then you will have hurt feelings.

[F]or decades, conventional netiquette has advised against the use of all capital letters (all caps) when writing online with the often-cited reason that WRITING LIKE THIS comes across as “very aggressive (LIKE SHOUTING!).”…

Aside from the shouting effect, there are some other reasons why we don’t use all caps in everyday writing. If only capital letters are used in a piece of writing, nuance is lost. Numerous studies conducted over the decades (since as early as 1914) also suggest that text written in all capitals takes more time and effort to read than text in standard sentence case. That’s because people recognize words more easily by their contours. Lowercase words show the highs and lows of letter-extenders (like d and p). Words in all caps have a uniform rectangular shape.

And I’m certain that there are VERY MANY males (including, naturally, many white males) who are FAR more dangerous than Ferrell. I have had the considerable misfortune to know a few of them personally.

“Solitaire And your “account” of the police response to the Charleston shooting could serve as a classic example of what is nowadays referred to as “fake news.”

Nope, the cops did buy him hamburgers.

This has gotten misinterpreted and/or misreported as the cops actually taking him to a fast food restaurant on the way to the police station. You will notice that I didn’t word my account in that manner. But it is true that at the station, when he said that he was hungry, they sent an officer out to Burger King to buy food for him.

Compare this treatment to that of Freddie Gray after his arrest. He had killed no one, much less nine people in a racially motivated hate crime.

Herneith One of the things you have in common with Solitaire is that you think (if “think” is the correct word, which I rather doubt) in terms of the CRUDEST stereotypes. However, matters are considerably worse that that, in that YOUR stereotypes are not merely crude but in fact ENTIRELY BASELESS, and are laughably hackneyed at well.

Don’t you realise how childish and silly you make yourself sound when you come out with the “mother’s basement” nonsense? PLUS it exposes how narrow and PAROCHIAL is your view of the world. The OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of people in the world DON’T have, and NEVER HAVE had any sort of basement.

And, like very many people in my country, I have always lived in flats. I have never EVEN seen the inside of a basement (and in London, from where I hail, it is paradoxically only VERY WEALTHY people who get to live in “basement flats” – which tend to cost upwards of a million pounds sterling, i.e. WELL OVER a million dollars).

It seems to me there is a humorous play on words lurking here somewhere – something along the lines of “not only BASELESS but BASEMENTLESS” lol.

And please feel free to “call me a name” – I very much doubt whether it would bother me.

sharinair “A car sitting in your yard or driving down a road is not being used to” cause death or serious injury to another human being.” No, nor is an assault rifle lying in a closet or under someone’s bed, or for that matter a nuclear warhead stored in an arsenal somewhere.

They are not CURRENTLY “being used to” cause death or serious injury.” They are currently in all probability not being USED for ANYTHING. That obviously DOESN’T mean that these are not deadly weapons or (the other common term) LETHAL weapons.

You AGAIN fail to grasp a VERY SIMPLE distinction (one which any four-year-old might be expected to understand) namely the distinction between “object x is currently BEING USED for purpose y” and “object x belongs to a category of objects which are (at some time or other) used for purpose y.”

The article in question states “In criminal law, the term, ‘deadly weapon’ refers to a firearm, or any other object that is used or intended to be used in such a way that it could cause death or serious injury to another human being.”

It does NOT say “that is CURRENTLY being used” and VERY OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT MEAN “is CURRENTLY being used.”

Are you seriously going to (try to) argue that a loaded assault rifle lying in a closet, or a loaded pistol sitting in someone’s waistband or pocket, are NOT deadly weapons?

That certainly ISN’T what the law says. If it DID then nobody could be charged with possession of such implements UNTIL they started shooting (or until there was AI LEAST very good reason to believe that they intended to start shooting).

“That obviously DOESN’T mean that these are not deadly weapons or (the other common term) LETHAL weapons.”—According to the law and the nice source provided it does mean they are not deadly weapons just for existing.

“You AGAIN fail to grasp a VERY SIMPLE distinction (one which any four-year-old might be expected to understand) namely the distinction between “object x is currently BEING USED for purpose y” and “object x belongs to a category of objects which are (at some time or other) used for purpose y.”—Sorry but no. This is just another fluffed up bunch of bs to hide the fact that you can’t understand the difference between your opinion of a deadly weapon and the legal definition of it. Be thankful I chose to clarify the use of “used” as you were so quick to point it out when you thought you had something only to be back at square 1. Refuted.

“It does NOT say “that is CURRENTLY being used” and VERY OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT MEAN “is CURRENTLY being used.””—All this reaching and grasping nothing. 1) Quote me saying currently? 2) “that is used” is a very important concept to grasp here. You have to use it as a weapon. Example: that is hot. That does not mean later it is hot or two weeks ago it is hot. rolls eyes

“Are you seriously going to (try to) argue that a loaded assault rifle lying in a closet, or a loaded pistol sitting in someone’s waistband or pocket, are NOT deadly weapons?”—Legally they are not. See source above again.

“That certainly ISN’T what the law says. If it DID then nobody could be charged with possession of such implements UNTIL they started shooting (or until there was AI LEAST very good reason to believe that they intended to start shooting).”—You obviously have shown that you know little of the law. No one is arrested for having a gun in the closet. I have two and legal papers to show it. If I open fire on people then I will be charged and it will being assault with a deadly weapon or murder. If you are charged with possession it isn’t going to be considered a deadly weapon. I knew you were slow to the upkeep when you started name calling but dang.

Perhaps a person can be arrested for having a gun in their closet in London, but if you are going to debate situations that occurred in the U.S. then you had best go by our laws, because yours don’t apply. If a person legally owns a gun, then they’ve got a constitutional right to have that gun in their closet. Not just a legal right, but a constitutionally protected right established by the Founders of the Republic.

sharinair The “source” you quote DOESN’T at ANY point say that if a firearm is not at the moment being used to kill or injure someone it is therefore NOT a deadly weapon. HOW do you come to imagine that it DOES say that.

(By the way, I have the impression that you are struggling to understand certain things because English isn’t your native language. If you let me know what IS your first or usual language I can try to help you out with some translations).

One accused of carrying a knife that may or may not have been legal depending on whether state law or city code took precedence and whether the knife fit the definition in the city code; a knife that the man did not pull out or flourish or use to attack, but simply was carrying.

The other gunned down nine innocent victims inside a church, including preachers and a senator.

Which of these two men was more deserving of dying from injuries sustained through improper police transport, alleged beating by the police, and refusal of timely medical treatment?

Sharinair Whether a person has a constitutional right to own a firearm or not ISN’T THE QUESTION. The question is whether a firearm (or a knife, or a motor vehicle etc.) is correctly described as a “deadly weapon.”

WHAT the Second Amendment says is that “the right to keep and bear arms” (i.e. THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR DEADLY WEAPONS) “shall not be infringed” – it most emphatically does NOT say that firearms are NOT deadly weapons. If they WEREN’T deadly weapons the constitutional “right to keep and bear” them wouldn’t be worth very much, now would it, lol?

Solitaire ONCE MORE – so you in fact ACCEPT that the police in question were acting correctly when they provided Roof with food? What DIFFERENT police in a DIFFERENT police department in a DIFFERENT STATE in a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SITUATION did is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT to that question.

Solitaire On “isolated” – the video itself shows very clearly that there were other vehicles passing frequently, and that there were settlements (and what would be classified as a “built-up area”) only a few miles away. So the location of the original “stop” was hardly very “isolated” was it?

Whether a person has a constitutional right to own a firearm or not ISN’T THE QUESTION. The question is whether a firearm (or a knife, or a motor vehicle etc.) is correctly described as a “deadly weapon.”

WHAT the Second Amendment says is that “the right to keep and bear arms” (i.e. THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR DEADLY WEAPONS) “shall not be infringed” – it most emphatically does NOT say that firearms are NOT deadly weapons. If they WEREN’T deadly weapons the constitutional “right to keep and bear” them wouldn’t be worth very much, now would it, lol?

I will grant you that the highway in question was not as isolated as some others.

What you are failing to take into account, though, is that the perception of isolation is relative, not fixed. New Mexico has very few black residents. Many of those settlements, as you call them, are historical sundown towns, and black people typically feel wary and isolated and vulnerable when they are in small rural white communities that have a history of keeping blacks out using police intimidation, physical threats, and actual violence.

I come from a town like that, although in a different part of the country. It feels like a safe place to me, but black people from the nearby city are scared to stop in my town. As recently as the ’90s, a Vietnamese couple who stopped at night to fill gas were verbally harassed and threatened by some of the town’s teenagers.

Oriana Farrell is from Memphis, which is a sizeable city that has a large black population. She is going to feel way more isolated and vulnerable on that New Mexico highway than any white person probably would.

“What DIFFERENT police in a DIFFERENT police department in a DIFFERENT STATE in a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SITUATION did is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT to that question.”

It’s not irrelevant when it’s part of an established national pattern of maltreatment of black people in police custody comparative to the treatment of whites.

Yes, not only were they right to provide food, my understanding is they were legally required to do so.

The police in Baltimore were also legally required to properly secure Freddie Gray during vehicular transport and to provide timely medical treatment. Do you think they did wrong by not following these legal requirements?

“Whether a person has a constitutional right to own a firearm or not ISN’T THE QUESTION. The question is whether a firearm (or a knife, or a motor vehicle etc.) is correctly described as a “deadly weapon.””

You introduced a subtopic when you ridiculed Sharina for her statement about the gun in the closet. I was responding to that, as you well know.

Look under “Examples of Statutes” in the link above. Please note that in Maine a car would only be a dangerous weapon if there was intent to use it as such:

“(3) Any other device, instrument, material or substance, whether animate or inanimate, which, in the manner it is intended to be used by the actor, is capable of producing or threatening death or serious bodily injury. For purposes of this definition, the intent may be conditional.”

“Perhaps a person can be arrested for having a gun in their closet in London, but if you are going to debate situations that occurred in the U.S. then you had best go by our laws, because yours don’t apply. If a person legally owns a gun, then they’ve got a constitutional right to have that gun in their closet. Not just a legal right, but a constitutionally protected right established by the Founders of the Republic.”

You need to brush up on your US Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms was NOT “established” by the “Founders of the Republic” (who the heck were THEY anyway – just a bunch of WHITE GUYS, lol). It was RECOGNIZED and affirmed in the Second Amendment as an ALREADY-EXISTING RIGHT (it having PREVIOUSLY been asserted in the ENGLISH Bill of Rights of 1689.

And it of course does NOT say that the gun in someone’s closet is NECESSARILY legal. For a start, in the United States convicted felons may not, as I understand it, legally possess ANY firearm (a restriction which, rather surprisingly, DOESN’T apply in Britain). And, whether one has a criminal record or not, there are numerous categories of firearm which one cannot in practice legally own. TRUE assault rifles for example (i.e. FULLY AUTOMATIC rifles such as the M-16 or the AKM) and indeed ALL fully automatic firearms, e.g. submacineguns. Also shotguns with a barrel below a certain length (18 inches as I remember) . . . and so on.

But the main point is that these are ALL deadly/lethal weapons – whether or not they are in a closet at home or ACTUALLY being used to carry out a massacre as we speak.

“The “source” you quote DOESN’T at ANY point say that if a firearm is not at the moment being used to kill or injure someone it is therefore NOT a deadly weapon. HOW do you come to imagine that it DOES say that.”—How do you continue typing with your reading comprehension failure and straw man creating comments? You seem to struggle with the same passage you quote allow me to put it in a manner that will make it easier for you to understand.

“deadly weapon’refers to a firearm, or any other object that is used in such a way that it could cause death or serious injury to another human being”—This means that is must be used in such a way that would cause death or serious injury to someone. A gun can’t be used in a way to cause death or serious injury in your closet, just being held etc. Key word in that passage is must be used in a way. So until it is used as such it is not a deadly weapon per that source.
“Whether a person has a constitutional right to own a firearm or not ISN’T THE QUESTION. The question is whether a firearm (or a knife, or a motor vehicle etc.) is correctly described as a “deadly weapon.”—Actually the original statement was you claiming a vehicle was a deadly weapon and have now deflected to knife and assault rifle. None the less they have both been answered and you are basically in denial.

“WHAT the Second Amendment says is that “the right to keep and bear arms” (i.e. THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR DEADLY WEAPONS) “shall not be infringed” – it most emphatically does NOT say that firearms are NOT deadly weapons. If they WEREN’T deadly weapons the constitutional “right to keep and bear” them wouldn’t be worth very much, now would it, lol?”—Didn’t mention the second amendment. The “right to keep and bear” doesn’t indicate that they are legally defined as deadly weapons on existence. However, those very quoted laws with sources do indicated clearly that are not.

Solitaire Once again you read something but fail to understand it. Once again you cite something as if it PROVED your point when in fact it UNDERMINES it.

I used to teach in the US, and I remember Americans as being pretty stupid, but NOWHERE NEAR as stupid as you and sharinair et al are proving to be. What the hell is wrong with you all?!!

“Any other device, instrument, material or substance, whether animate or inanimate, which, in the manner it is intended to be used by the actor, is capable of producing or threatening death or serious bodily injury. For purposes of this definition, the intent may be conditional

This does NOT say that it is INTENDED to produce or threaten death or serious bodily injury. It says that IF when it is used for the purpose for which it is intended (e.g. driving along a highway at high speeds) it is “CAPABLE OF producing or threatening death or serious bodily injury.”

Just to reiterate, it DOES NOT say that it needs to be INTENDED to cause death or serious injury. It says that it ONLY needs to be capable of producing or threatening death or serious bodily injury when used for its (usual) intended purpose, OR used for the purpose for which the “actor” intended it to be used at the time (e.g. travelling along a highway at high speed, and, in Ferrell’s case, in an attempt to evade apprehension by the police).

And Oriana Ferrells “minivan” (along with most other motor vehicles) in fact fits the Maine definition of “dangerous weapon” PERFECTLY.

It undoubtedly is, when used “in the manner it is intended to be used by the actor, capable of producing or threatening death or serious bodily injury.”

It is NO wonder that most police officers, when one discusses these issues with them, will ALWAYS stress AT THE OUTSET that “a motor vehicle is a lethal weapon” or “whenever you get behind the wheel you have to remember that a car is a deadly weapon.”

“This does NOT say that it is INTENDED to produce or threaten death or serious bodily injury. It says that IF when it is used for the purpose for which it is intended (e.g. driving along a highway at high speeds) it is “CAPABLE OF producing or threatening death or serious bodily injury.”

No, it does not. It is very clearly saying that the object is only considered to be a deadly weapon if the actor used it with such intent. A cast-iron frying pan can be considered a deadly weapon in legal terms if the actor bashed someone in the back of the head with it. But when used as intended, a frying pan is not capable of producing or threatening death serious bodily injury.

Again, I refer you to the wiki link given above:

“For example, a shoe or a shod foot used for kicking may be considered a dangerous weapon.”

When used for the purpose it is intended, as protection for the foot when walking, a shoe is not a deadly weapon.

The Florida Supreme Court may have to decide in the near future whether a car is considered a deadly weapon when used to harm or kill someone in the state of Florida. The lower appellate courts in the state are divided on this issue, forcing the state’s Supreme Court to become the deciding factor.

It may seem as though it is obvious that if a car is used in a crime that it could be considered a deadly weapon, but the law has not always made it clear. In cases where there is a murder by use of car, and a clear premeditation and intention existed on behalf of the driver, there is no grey area in awarding the title of deadly weapon to a vehicle.

However, it is often difficult to prove that there was premeditation and intention, and it is up to the state to do so….

In 2004, the Florida Supreme Court found that “an automobile is not commonly understood to be an instrument for combat against another person,” which is the precedent that some appeals courts are using when determining whether a car is considered a weapon in certain cases.

One appeals court in the state argued that a car could not be considered a deadly weapon in a case where a man ran over a woman three times after they left a bar. This distinction means that the man’s 30-year manslaughter sentence was cut in half.

Solitaire “Says the person who is too dumb to remember the difference between two usernames that both start with ‘S’.”

That’s just a routine and inconsequential slip – actually occurs most commonly in people of very high intelligence (as with the great and illustrious Reverend Spooner, late Warden of Wadham College, Oxford. Lol!

“You obviously ARE struggling with a language which is not your first language. As I say, let me know what your ACTUAL language is and I will try to organize some translations for you.”—Yeah. I think you can stop projecting now. The mere fact that after several posts and you still don’t get it but are taking words here and there to argue says it all. However, I have no problem using another post to make you look as foolish as the last few.

“NOTE – “COULD cause death or serious injury.””—Also NOTE: “that is used in such a way”. You still keep trying to bypass the fact that sitting in your closet isn’t being used in a manner that will cause death or serious injury to someone. Not to mention YOU brought up used, so not you want to look for any small thing to ignore the fact that once again you at square 1.

“Do you really think “could” and “would” mean the same thing, lol?”—Oh I don’t, but you would have to actually cause death or serious injury before you are arrested, charged, and enter court for your weapon to be considered a deadly weapon. I mean they aren’t going to charge you for holding it and the only way it reaches a deadly weapon status is if you used it as such. Consider this post number….whatever you have been refuted so many times.

“ (I take it you really mean “in such a way that IT would).”—I meant exactly what I said. What you are doing is using a grammar troll move. That and name calling are usually sure signs of a lost argument, but that part was obvious before the name calling.

“That’s just a routine and inconsequential slip – actually occurs most commonly in people of very high intelligence (as with the great and illustrious Reverend Spooner, late Warden of Wadham College, Oxford. Lol!”–It also occurs in people with dementia and alzheimer’s.

“This does NOT say that it is INTENDED to produce or threaten death or serious bodily injury. It says that . . . ”

YOU reply “No, it does not. It is very clearly saying that the object is only considered to be a deadly weapon if the actor used it with such intent.”

WHERE is it “clearly saying” ANY SUCH THING?

But never mind, you have once again managed to make my point for me.

“When used as intended, a frying pan is not capable of producing or threatening death [or] serious bodily injury.”

EXACTLY! And THAT is what distinguishes a frying pan (or a shoe) from a motor vehicle, which PRECISELY WHEN BEING USED FOR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT IS INTENDED IS NOT ONLY CAPABLE OF PRODUCING DEATH OR SERIOUS INJURY BUT DOES DO PRECISELY THAT – CAUSE DEATH AND SERIOUS INJURY – AND IN GREATER NUMBERS THAN DOES ANY OTHER KIND OF OBJECT ON THE PLANET.

The car is a KILLER (the BIGGEST killer OF ALL) exactly WHEN BEING USED AS INTENDED. The frying-pan and the shoe are, of course, not.

sharinair It doesn’t make any sense to say “dementia AND alzheimer’s.” It is Alzheimer’s by the way, with a capital “A” (since it is named after a person) inability to spell is ALSO a symptom of dementia, lol.

Alzheimer’s IS (a form of) dementia, not some OTHER condition – so all you have done with your callous and cheap little remark is to provide yet another demonstration of your ignorance

“inability to spell is ALSO a symptom of dementia, lol.”–You do realize that an inability to spell does not include not capitalizing it right?

“Alzheimer’s IS (a form of) dementia, not some OTHER condition – so all you have done with your callous and cheap little remark is to provide yet another demonstration of your ignorance”–Nope, but you sure help show yours.

“Dementia and Alzheimer’s disease aren’t the same. Dementia is an overall term used to describe symptoms that impact memory, performance of daily activities, and communication abilities. Alzheimer’s disease is the most common type of dementia. Alzheimer’s disease gets worse with time and affects memory, language, and thought.”

In other words, even though alzheimer’s is a type of dementia they are not the same thing.

From an article that specifically talks about New Mexico’s legal code:

It is important to realize that a firearm is defined as a weapon designed to propel an object by an explosion. There is a significant distinction between a firearm and a deadly weapon. Many objects may be used as deadly weapons. Much of the classification of a deadly weapon depends upon intent. As such, a lamp if used with deadly intent constitutes a deadly weapon.

Amazing! You did it YET AGAIN. You cited/quoted a source which FULLY supports MY OWN account of matters and UNDERMINES yours.

Astounding!

“The court recognized that many objects, lamps, chairs, rocks, dishes, bottles and yes pocket-knives may and have become deadly weapons with the requisite intent.”

Which follows “a pocket-knife is no more a deadly weapon than a rock, both of which can be used to inflict deadly harm” –

Which of course is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the situation regarding motor vehicles (which ARE deadly – THE DEADLIEST THINGS THERE ARE ON THE PLANET (the deadliest “man-made” objects) – REGARDLESS of whether there is any INTENT to use them as a weapon).

A pocket knife CAN of course be used for its intended purpose WITHOUT presenting any serious risk of causing death or SERIOUS injury to a person. A motor vehicle CANNOT, as is PROVEN by the deaths and injuries which motor vehicles cause EVERY MINUTE OF EVERY DAY (and in fact, I would suspect as regards serious INJURIES, EVERY SECOND of EVERY day).

“It doesn’t make any sense to say “dementia AND alzheimer’s.” It is Alzheimer’s by the way, with a capital “A” (since it is named after a person) inability to spell is ALSO a symptom of dementia, lol.”—It makes plenty of sense seeing as I said “It also occurs in people with dementia and alzheimer’s.” With them not being the same darn thing people can have symptoms and not have the disease. Oh dear I purposely did not capitalize the a and will continue to because this grammar trolling (aka ad hominem fallacy) is a desperate move for someone with no real argument and I like watching you be desperate. Not to mention an inability to spell is me spelling is altimers not me not capitalizing it which is a grammar error.

“I of course DIDN’T say that Alzheimer’s and dementia “are the same thing.”—Yet I didn’t say you did. When I want to quote what you say I clearly put ”You stated:” However, I am entitled to clarify my position. You stated: not some OTHER condition. I never said it was. You assumed that me saying “dementia AND alzheimer’s.” meant that. This is another one of your straw man arguments by the way. You keep trying to argue positions never presented, so the dishonesty is just you.

However, dementia is off topic here. You can continue to argue it here:

He is a troll. There is no way this dude has 24hrs to argue points unless he is occupying some room at his mom’s. His wilfully obtuse behavior is a result of him calling so many names and so desperate to prove he is smart he will never admit he is wrong. Just change the subject to some irrelevant bs.

Solitaire I have ALREADY made it clear that I am not (not PRIMARILY) concerned with ANY “legal” or “technical” sense of “deadly weapon” or “intent” – indeed I quoted Dickens to the effect that “the law is an ass” (for the sake of the pedants among you I am already aware that it is said by the character Mr. Bumble in a rather specific context and that what Bumble says is in fact “the law is a ass” (not AN ass)).

ANY legal or technical definition of these terms in any case derives its meaning ultimately from its use in vernacular language, and IN that language the motor vehicle is habitually and customarily described as a “lethal weapon” or “deadly weapon” and also as a “killing machine” (ALL of which are, of course, PRECISELY WHAT IT IS).

“I have ALREADY made it clear that I am not (not PRIMARILY) concerned with ANY “legal” or “technical” sense of “deadly weapon” or “intent”

That’s fine, but it does not then follow that Oriana Farrell was in possession of a deadly weapon as understood by the law and therefore it does not follow that she was a dangerous criminal under the law. You can’t have it both ways. If you aren’t concerned with the legal definition, you can’t ignore it and use some other non-legal definition to claim she was legally a dangerous criminal in possession of a deadly weapon with intent to kill and/or do serious bodily injury.

“ANY legal or technical definition of these terms in any case derives its meaning ultimately from its use in vernacular language”

And yet the courts would not bother to create and specify a legal definition if the vernacular definition was sufficient for their purposes.

“the motor vehicle is habitually and customarily described as a “lethal weapon” or “deadly weapon” and also as a “killing machine”

Prove that the use is habitual and customary instead of being employed only in purple-prose discourse about traffic fatalities. Habitual and customary use would be: “Honey, have you seen the keys to my killing machine?” or “My deadly weapon needs a new carburetor” or “Look, there’s a nice 2015 lethal weapon on sale at the used killing-machine dealership.”

Solitaire Among your numerous other unattractive traits you evidently have an extremely vile, sick, callous sense of humour. There is NOTHING funny about the slaughter inflicted by motor vehicles on innocent people. You are (apparently) TERRIBLY concerned about nine black people killed by a gunman (IF, that is, the gunman is white) but 900 (or 9,000, or 90,000) black people killed by the venal car industry and by the irresponsible motorist are, it seems (as far as YOU are concerned), a subject for smug bourgeois sarcasm and cheap and flippant excuses for witticisms.

The burden of proof is on you to show that in the eyes of the law Oriana Farrell was in possession of a deadly weapon that she used with the intent to cause death or severe bodily injury rather than a reckless driver in violation of at least two rules of the road but with no intent to cause death or severe bodily injury.

Preemptive strike. You appear to be heading in the direction of the black-on-black crime argument by making the the claim that I only cared about the 9 black murdered churchgoers but not about the larger number of black people who die in car accidents annually. It is a similar argument arising from similar faulty logic.

It’s also an attempt to divert from the main issue: your claim that in the eyes of the law Oriana Farrell was a dangerous criminal in possession of a deadly weapon that she was using with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury.

You have yet to respond to my most recent comments refuting your claims. Instead you were hoping to put me on the defensive by calling me names and challenging me about which deaths I care about more.

It was just an attempt to change the subject, which is generally employed by someone who cannot defend his stated position but refuses to concede.

Solitaire “Why don’t you respond directly to the points I made?” Once again, are you JOKING? You certainly SEEM to be, because THAT is quite hilarious!

Are you aware of the concept in psychology which is meant by “projection”? (You certainly SHOULD be, because your own conduct in these discussions is an almost perfect example of it).

Psychological projection is a phenomenon in which the human ego “defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative)” by DENYING THEIR EXISTENCE IN THEMSELVES – and denying that existence BY MEANS OF ATTRIBUTING THEM TO OTHERS (the others usually being their opponents in a discussion one might add)..

You ask “Why don’t you respond directly to the points I made?” and you ask this EVEN THOUGH it is YOU who fails to respond (whether directly or indirectly) to the points your opponent makes. Instead you “respond” to claims or opinions which you ATTRIBUTE to them, but which they have NEVER expressed.

I indeed pointed out (ONLY a day or two ago) that you (and also of course your online chums) persistently resort to this cheap trick (the cheapest of ALL cheap tricks) . . . and you have just proved me right YET AGAIN.

You write “The burden of proof is on you to show that in the eyes of the law Oriana Farrell [sic] was in possession of a deadly weapon that she used with the intent to cause death or severe bodily injury rather than a reckless driver in violation of at least two rules of the road but with no intent to cause death or severe bodily injury.”

I of course have NEVER said (OR implied) that Ferrell (it IS FERRELL by the way and not “Farrell” – one might have reasonably expected you after all this time to AT THE VERY LEAST have got THAT MUCH right) was doing ANYTHING “with the intent to cause death or severe bodily injury” (and I think that, even if you ARE as stupid as you pretend to be, you know that perfectly well – in other words you are being WILFULLY stupid in order to MISATTRIBUTE an opinion to your opponent . . . and you do this persistently because you are CLEARLY UNABLE to refute what your opponent has ACTUALLY said).

For some strange reason I don’t believe that there is ANY “burden of proof” (lol!) on me to “show” something which I have NEVER actually EVEN asserted, lol.

Solitaire (In reply to your latest, which states “It’s also an attempt to divert from the main issue: your claim that in the eyes of the law Oriana Farrell was a dangerous criminal in possession of a deadly weapon that she was using with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury.)

ONCE AGAIN, I have of course NEVER “claimed that in the eyes of the law Oriana FERRELL was a dangerous criminal in possession of a deadly weapon that she was using with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury.”

So WHY do you persist in speaking as if I HAD made such a claim?

Either you are WILFULLY and dishonestly misrepresenting was I said OR ELSE you must REALLY be ALMOST UNBELIEVABLY stupid.

Solitaire It seems that Farrell/Ferrell (in line with a time-honoured
criminal practice) is in the habit of VARYING the spelling of her surname (probably, although of course not necessarily, for nefarious purposes) hence the multiple inconsistencies in the various press references to her name. The documents relating to the court case against her in New Mexico DO spell it “Farrell” – but I have seen MANY court documents which have got names wrong (including, on one occasion, my own, lol) – and they get them wrong VERY OFTEN where it is a question of minor differences in spelling. So it is a “moot point” whether it is Farrell or Ferrell (or indeed BOTH, lol) but obviously I was quite mistaken in thinking that the name is definitely spelled “Ferrell.”

Solitaire Making a mistake of THAT kind isn’t a sign of stupidity. I am accustomed to placing comments in contexts where one’s identity ISN’T flagged automatically, no I am used to keying in my name at the front of each of my comments. Nothing could be more natural than to put my own name at the front of a comment by mistake.

“But isn’t it interesting that you choose to focus on THAT instead of answering the RELEVANT question”—That was interesting when you spend several posts avoiding addressing relevant topics, particularly those you brought up. Even more interesting or telling is the slew of ad hominems you threw out to avoid the fact you had no argument at all. Yet you didn’t notice what that was telling about you.

But to tell you something about solitaire’s comment. It appears you no longer takes you seriously, though I doubt anyone really has other than ARN who is desperate for support.

sharinalr “That was interesting when you spend several posts avoiding addressing relevant topics, particularly those you brought up. Even more interesting or telling is the slew of ad hominems you threw out to avoid the fact you had no argument at all.”

“Yes, I KNOW the origin of the name – I am a long-time enthusiast for Irish history.”

Riiiight, but with all those years of study you didn’t know that Farrell is one of the most common Anglicized versions of the name?

No, you cast shade on Oriana Farrell, saying, “It seems that Farrell/Ferrell (in line with a time-honoured
criminal practice) is in the habit of VARYING the spelling of her surname (probably, although of course not necessarily, for nefarious purposes).”

Instead of admitting and/or comprehending that Farrell is in fact the correct and legal spelling of her family name, you revealed both your ignorance and your prejudice.

So you think you can call me a “vile disgusting little pig,” “extremely vile, sick, callous” and — at least four times — “stupid,” but I can’t call you an English oppressor?

I think we may have reached the point where there isn’t any sense in continuing. He blatantly denies saying and doing everything he’s quite clearly said and done, and he just wants us to waste energy trying to prove it.

Meanwhile, I’m still curious about what you were going to say on the Open Thread last week, if it’s still in your mind to say it.

Solitaire You at least APPEAR to suppose that “Sassenach” is a pejorative word used by the Irish to insult English people – when in fact it is a word used ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY for that purpose by (of course) those traditional and most ferocious enemies of the Irish . . . THE SPLENDID AND MAGNIFICENT SCOTS.

“Sassenach is derived from the Scottish Gaelic word sasunnach, literally meaning ‘Saxon’, and originally used by Gaelic speakers to refer to NON-GAELIC SPEAKING SCOTTISH LOWLANDERS. Scots, after all, is descended from northern varieties of the medieval language known as Old English or Anglo-Saxon, and although Scots and English evolved into their own distinctive forms, they have much more in common with each other than with Gaelic.

“As Tobias Smollett wrote in the novel, Humphrey Clinker (1771), ‘The Highlanders have no other name for the people of the Low country, but Sassenagh [sic.], or Saxons’. In modern Scotland, however, the Gaelic term has been adopted into general usage as sassenach, denoting something or someone English.

“Labels for specific groups of people can of course be problematic, encouraging a sense of cultural and ideological division, and evoking an air of tribalism or inequality. The assertion that ‘this is our word for you (whether you like it or not)’ is clearly a political statement, even when the word is not used intentionally as a term of abuse. The Scots and the English, over the centuries, have had some issues. Catherine Tate’s comedy sketch, where the English grandmother ‘cannot’ understand her Scottish neighbour except in terms of ‘something about kilts’, lampoons a stereotype that is more often fiction than fact, yet real enough to make many a viewer laugh when he or she sees it.

“Sassenach, while a potentially loaded term, is found in a wide range of contexts, sometimes for stylistic effect. The Herald asserted in 2002 that: ‘BBC Scotland is hoping [the soap opera] River City will be just as long-running as its Sassenach equivalents’. In this instance, ‘Sassenach equivalents’ makes the geographical point more clearly, sidestepping the ambiguities of ‘English equivalents’ which could signify language rather than location. Furthermore, Sassenach is well suited to journalese writing that welcomes any opportunity to evoke a sense of ‘us’ and ‘them’.

“There are of course more extreme cases. The actor Maurice Roeves, who was born in Sunderland, recalled some unpleasant childhood experiences after his family moved to Partick. In a Daily Record interview last year he said: “I’d be talking in a Geordie accent and the other kids would be: ‘sassenach’. I got beaten up to hell. I had to learn Glaswegian pretty quick to join the gang.”

“The divisive aspect of sassenach is mitigated somewhat by its adoption by English people. Writing in the Aberdeen Press and Journal in February, Jeremy Cresswell stated: “Strictly speaking I’m a sassenach, but I have spent the bulk of my working life north of the border”. Social, cross-border initiatives, such as ‘Burns in the Buff’, held this year in Dunoon, are clearly good examples of occasions when people can get to know each other better. The volunteers’ co-ordinator for the largest naked Burns Supper of its kind was quoted in The Herald as saying: “As a mere Sassenach, I found the haggis absolutely wonderful”.”

Here is an example of an ad hominem (e.g. name calling). You focused more on trying to make it about a sentence you claim is incoherent. However, you ignore the fact that you are whining at solitaire for doing something you have been doing this whole thread.

You focused primarily on my wording to avoid the fact that the source had refuted you. In fact you brought up “used” originally and when refuted you got made and focused on “would”. The fact that you made it about me rather than the claim you made is called an ad hominem.

How can the names I called you be considered racist? How can my calling you those names be considered racist? English is not a race. Irish is not a race. You could say ethnicity or nationality but not race.

Try telling the Irish or (heaven help us!) the Scots that they are not a race! There IS, of course, a specialized TECHNICAL terminology under which it is SOMETIMES argued that these are not races but “ethnicities” (although it is also SOMETIMES argued that they are not ethnicities EITHER).

However, the LAW in the UK (and in ALMOST ALL countries in Europe) makes, for example, NO practical distinction regarding, say, the serious criminal offence of “Incitement to Racial Hatred)” between that incitement’s being on the basis of race and its being incitement on the grounds of “ethnicity” (or, for that matter, of nationality or national origin).

Morally – and LEGALLY – racial abuse and “ethnic” abuse are (despite all your sophistry) THE SAME THING.

sharinalr “You focused primarily on my wording to avoid the fact that the source had refuted you. In fact you brought up “used” originally and when refuted you got made [sic] and focused on “would”. The fact that you made it about me rather than the claim you made is called an ad hominem” is just incoherent drivel.

Just to remind you, you quoted a source which says:

“deadly weapon’ refers to a firearm, or any other object that is used in such a way that it COULD cause death or serious injury to another human being” [My capitals].

NOTE – “COULD cause death or serious injury.”

After which you then wrote:

“This means that it MUST be used in such a way that WOULD cause death or serious injury to someone. A gun can’t be used in a way to cause death or serious injury in your closet, just being held etc.”

But of course it DOES NOT say that OR MEAN that.

Your source states that it is a deadly weapon if it COULD cause death or serious injury, and NOT that it WOULD cause either of these.

OF COURSE I focused on “would” – because YOUR phoney “argument” consists of quoting a source which says COULD and then sneakily substituting WOULD for COULD – AS IF COULD and WOULD mean THE SAME THING, lol, which of course they VERY PLAINLY do NOT.

In fact what you came up with isn’t an ARGUMENT at all! It’s just a cheap, crude and very obviously DISHONEST attempt to play a shoddy little verbal trick.

There is NOTHING “ad hominem” about pointing out that your source DOESN’T say what you dishonestly ATTEMPT to CLAIM that it says.

You write “Key word in that passage is must be used in a way. So until it is used as such it is not a deadly weapon per that source.”

BUT the word “MUST” ISN’T EVEN IN THAT PASSAGE.

Therefore your supposed “argument” utterly collapses – at the very outset of proceedings.

“is just incoherent drivel.”—And this is another example of your ad hominems

“ust to remind you, you quoted a source which says:”—That is not all the source said as it specifically speaks to vehicles in which you claimed was a deadly weapon. Something I also quoted and see how you focused on this as you were refuted by the other and still refuted by this. Let me show you how.

“our source states that it is a deadly weapon if it COULD cause death or serious injury, and NOT that it WOULD cause either of these.”—Actually it doesn’t say that at all. It states, “THAT IS USED IN SUCH A WAY that it could cause death or serious injury to another human being”

See you were quick to point out “used” originally because you thought it was some turning point, but then decided to focus on the “would”. However, you deceitfully ignore the used in a way as that is a requirement for it to be considered a deadly weapon. Still refuted dear and still proving my point.
“consists of quoting a source which says COULD and then sneakily substituting WOULD for COULD – AS IF COULD and WOULD mean THE SAME THING, lol, which of course they VERY PLAINLY do NOT.”—I didn’t substitute could for would. I just summarized the meaning for you as you are having trouble understanding.

“attempt to play a shoddy little verbal trick.”—Not really. The shoddy little verbal tricks in place of an argument are more in line with what you are doing as you have several grammar troll posts. Not to mention you focused on WOULD the whole time, but keep ignoring or deflecting from how the passage faithfully refutes you. You screaming “well you said would” doesn’t change that the passage still means what I said and still refutes you.

“BUT the word “MUST” ISN’T EVEN IN THAT PASSAGE.”—Must doesn’t have to be in the post for it to be a requirements. It called summarization. If it was a direct quote it would be in those things called quotation marks. Duh!

See this is a pattern you have shown. When you are presented with sources or anything that refutes a claim you make you quickly attempt to deflect to something else. Now you can rehash the issue in each presented example, but what it won’t change is that they clearly display “you spend several posts avoiding addressing relevant topics, particularly those you brought up and slew of ad hominems you threw out to avoid the fact you had no argument at all.”

Now you even have the added bonus of “blatantly denies saying and doing everything he’s quite clearly said and done”.

“See this is a pattern you have shown. When you are presented with sources or anything that refutes a claim you make you quickly attempt to deflect to something else. Now you can rehash the issue in each presented example, but what it won’t change is that they clearly display “you spend several posts avoiding addressing relevant topics, particularly those you brought up and slew of ad hominems you threw out to avoid the fact you had no argument at all.”

Now you even have the added bonus of “blatantly denies saying and doing everything he’s quite clearly said and done”.

Why make stuff up when it can be quoted?”

The “pattern” I have shown is that of reading sources and addressing myself to what they ACTUALLY SAY, unlike YOU who systematically DISTORTS and/or MISREPRESENTS what they say.

You and your little “chums” have yet to come up with ANYTHING that “refutes” my claims.”

And as for the accusation of using “ad hominem” arguments, this is a classic, and glaring example of PROJECTION on your part. You are, consciously or unconsciously, ascribing YOUR OWN failings to ME. Your comment just quoted HERE is a piece of PURE ad hominem.

It states, “THAT IS USED IN SUCH A WAY that it could cause death or serious injury to another human being”

Yes, and the motor vehicle as a category is typically used in such a way that it not only COULD but VERY OFTEN DOES cause death and injury – MORE DEATH AND INJURY THAN IS CAUSED BY ANY OTHER MANUFACTURED OBJECT ON THE PLANET.

Sharinalr There is of course A VERY GOOD reason (the BEST POSSIBLE reason) why I didn’t ORIGINALLY focus on the “would” – which reason is OF COURSE that it WAS NOT THERE AT ALL in the original quotation.

Naturally (and indeed INEVITABLY) I focused on “would” ONLY when you POST HOC attempted to sneakily substitute “would” for “could.”

HOW could I have “focused on ‘would'” when “WOULD” SIMPLY WASN’T EVEN THERE, lol?!!!!!

NOW who is TRYING to make an issue out of something which clearly IS a MERE “typo” (and HARDLY any expression of “disrespect”)?

Instead, of course, of replying to my EXTREMELY SERIOUS point about the GENOCIDAL US treatment of the native Americans. But then I VERY MUCH doubt whether you HAVE (or CAN have) any valid reply to that rather decisive point.

And, since you are choosing to be pedantic, you SHOULD in fact have written:

“You could at least spell “Irish” correctly.”

As you are referring to the WORD “Irish” it SHOULD BE, and NEEDS TO BE, in quotation marks (and FAILURE to use quotation marks correctly in such contexts VERY OFTEN causes VERY REAL confusion).

Solitaire “But of course the horrific treatment of the Native Americans began 150 years before the U.S. even existed, in the English colonies under policies devised by the English.

Are you SERIOUSLY trying to suggest that the crimes against the native Americans DIDN’T continue (and in fact INTENSIFY) with US independence?

In fact one of the main reasons for the project of “American independence” was the desire of the American colonists to have a free hand to commit their GENOCIDAL crimes against the native Americans free of any restraints imposed from London (the OTHER main reason of course being the TeaParty-ish desire to evade taxes).

The US is, of course, a PROFOUNDLY more racist country than Britain (or EVEN than England) and YOUR OWN expressed attitudes increasingly exemplify that fact.

“There is of course A VERY GOOD reason (the BEST POSSIBLE reason) why I didn’t ORIGINALLY focus on the “would”” – which reason is OF COURSE that it WAS NOT THERE AT ALL in the original quotation”—Sounds like some bs excuse for being caught, but newsflash my dear….it wasn’t in quotations because it wasn’t a darn quote. Do you understand what a summarization is and the purpose of it?

As to the remainder of what you said it was already detailed and explained in another post. You are rehashing. It can’t be substitution in this case unless I replaced the could in the original text. That was not done here. It wasn’t sneakily done it was upfront done in my (sadly repeating) summarization.

“HOW could I have “focused on ‘would’” when “WOULD” SIMPLY WASN’T EVEN THERE, lol?!!!!!”—Because you focused on it to deflect from the fact that “Used” your prior focus did not present a viable argument for you as it still showed you refuted. Like I said you have a pattern.

“The “pattern” I have shown is that of reading sources and addressing myself to what they ACTUALLY SAY, unlike YOU who systematically DISTORTS and/or MISREPRESENTS what they say.”—Acutally the misrepresentation is you. You also seem to have a habit of projecting your inadequacies, so as to avoid taking responsibility for them. In fact, you recently have an example of this when you try to claim the quote says something it doesn’t as you slyly removed USED. In your exchange with solitaire you did this frequently but ignoring certain words and only stringing together those that you feel support you.

“You and your little “chums” have yet to come up with ANYTHING that “refutes” my claims.”—Actually every post so far has refuted you. All with sources while you provide none.

“And as for the accusation of using “ad hominem” arguments, this is a classic, and glaring example of PROJECTION on your part. You are, consciously or unconsciously, ascribing YOUR OWN failings to ME. Your comment just quoted HERE is a piece of PURE ad hominem.”—See this is a prime example of what I said above about failing to take responsibility. Partly believe it is because you don’t really know the definition of ad hominem to realize your magnitude of doing it. It is hard to project when you were the one calling a commenter a “pig” “vile” or some array of “you’re stupid” . Yet you scream ad hominem when you are getting a return. You were doing all this prior to be commenting.

“You NOW just seem to be HOPELESSLY confused.”—Oh I am not confused, but I know you are. 😊

It actually states, “ In criminal law, the term, “deadly weapon” refers to a firearm, or any other object that is used or intended to be used in such a way that it could cause death or serious injury to another human being. “
I shortened it, so you could better understand as you were struggling with such a large amount of words.

“Yes, and the motor vehicle as a category is typically used in such a way that it not only COULD but VERY OFTEN DOES cause death and injury – MORE DEATH AND INJURY THAN IS CAUSED BY ANY OTHER MANUFACTURED OBJECT ON THE PLANET.”—This is false and this is the second quote on specifically motor vehicles that you faithfully ignore. “Yes, a vehicle is considered a deadly weapon IN CASES where the driver INTENDED to hit another driver or pedestrian. Some driving under the influence cases are also charged as assault with a deadly weapon.” Driving isn’t the definition of “being used in a way that causes death or injury.” Law refutes you, several posts have refuted you. I mean you are arguing with facts here.

“In fact it wasn’t I who changed it but YOU – by your in effect LYING about what your quotation says.”—So quote where you were accused of changing it?

“Once again –You quoted the following”—Yes, just like i have also took the time to quote it in full. What you present is only half the quote.

“NOTE – you THEN said that it means INSTEAD “must be used in such a way that WOULD cause death or serious injury . . .” (I take it you really mean “in such a way that IT would).”—I really mean what I wrote, but this link basically responds to this, so again rehashing something that was already address. Even if you changed it to COULD it still requires it be used in that way and not sitting in a closet so….

“And if the quotation meant “must” WHY does it INSTEAD say “could”?”—ROFL!!! My goodness. WOW. String the sentence together and read it in full. If you still fail to get it after that then I will break it down.

Because someone doesn’t have to actually cause death or bodily injury to get a charge of “possession of a deadly weapon” brought against them.

Someone might fire a gun at another person and miss. No bodily harm or death incurred. Yet that person may end up with a “possession of a deadly weapon” charge if there was a clear intent to kill or maim rather than, say, an accidental discharge of the firearm.

Solitaire “Because someone doesn’t have to actually cause death or bodily injury to get a charge of “possession of a deadly weapon” brought against them.

Quite! Exactly! Or indeed end up with a “possession of a deadly weapon” charge EVEN IF there is NO such intent whether “clear” or otherwise lol (depending on the context and, of course, on the jurisdiction in which this occurs).

“A person convicted of an illegal gun or weapons charge faces a possible state prison sentence even if the person has no prior criminal history. When a crime involves a weapon which is not necessarily a gun, district attorneys often ask the court to impose a DEADLY WEAPON ENHANCEMENT.

“The deadly weapon enhancement allows the judge to consider a harsher sentence then what the person would have received under the standard sentencing guidelines in Pennsylvania. While a gun . . . is considered a deadly weapon in Pennsylvania, District Attorneys and prosecutors often attempt to include other weapons within this category. Pennsylvania defines a deadly weapon as any device, implement, or instrumentality designed as a weapon or capable of producing death or serious bodily injury. These would include knives, BB guns, baseball bats, CARS, and tire irons. The court must consider whether the offender intended to use the weapon to threaten or injure another person.”

“Must be used” basically goes together. You have to use it. Sitting in your closet is not using it. Sitting in your drive way it not using it.
You then combining could or would to the the use of it. For example, spraying water at someone could end up in their eyes. However, that requirement is met by you first spraying the water at someone. It would not be met by spraying water at the grass.

“Quite! Exactly! Or indeed end up with a “possession of a deadly weapon” charge EVEN IF there is NO such intent whether “clear” or otherwise lol (depending on the context and, of course, on the jurisdiction in which this occurs).”—This has been repeatedly said and sadly you are just now getting it. However, notice how the scenario solitaire used involves the act of harming someone and not because the item is in existence.

Second of all, how does it remotely change anything said? The quote indicates what the judge may impose, but doesn’t indicate a requirement that it will though I can gather what you used the source for. Here is fully quoted statue and also specified a bit in your link.

“Any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, or any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or serious bodily injury, or any other device or instrumentality which, in the manner in which it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or serious bodily injury.

That still does not constitute a vehicle. Though a weapon or knife may have that definition in that state.

I take it you ACTUALLY meant “If your car is just sitting in your driveway you are not using it.”

ONCE AGAIN . . . exactly! Like Solitaire you keep on unwittingly making my points FOR me . . . lol.

“Using it” will generally mean NOT leaving it sitting on your driveway BUT INSTEAD DRIVING IT on the public highway – which OF COURSE means running a risk of killing or seriously injuring another person (REGARDLESS of any questions about intent).

The quote IN FACT then goes on to say “Even if the court, however, determines that the person didn’t intend on using the weapon there is STILL a weapons enhancement for THE MERE POSSESSION of it” although it adds “This, however, is not nearly as serious as use.”

“I take it you ACTUALLY meant “If your car is just sitting in your driveway you are not using it.”—No, I take it I meant exactly what i said. Though I take it you are no longer going to lie about YOU using ad hominems?

“ONCE AGAIN . . . exactly! Like Solitaire you keep on unwittingly making my points FOR me . . . lol.”– If only you had a point.

““Using it” will generally mean NOT leaving it sitting on your driveway BUT INSTEAD DRIVING IT on the public highway – which OF COURSE means running a risk of killing or seriously injuring another person (REGARDLESS of any questions about intent).”—See this is where your logic fails and you are unable to apply it to the quote and what it is saying. You have to use it in a manner that could cause that harm. For example, swerving in front of another car. If you are driving a car you are using it, but that does not constitute a manner that would cause harm to another. You can assume it will, but legally your assumption does not hold up in any court.

sharinalr It is IMPOSSIBLE to drive a motor vehicle at conventional speeds without creating a danger of serious injury OR INDEED DEATH to other people. THAT is why MORE THAN A MILLION PEOPLE ARE KILLED BY MOTOR VEHICLES EACH YEAR IN COLLISIONS – ONE PERSON, APPROXIMATELY, EVERY 25 SECONDS. On top of that MANY MORE MILLIONS die from inhaling the EMISSIONS from motor vehicles, and also untold numbers die from the pollution created in the MANUFACTURE of motor vehicles.

sharinalr If you take a motor vehicle out onto the road and drive it at ANY speed in excess of a few miles per hour then ANY distraction, ANY lapse of concentration, ANY ONE of a HUNDRED kinds of unforeseen mishap may VERY easily cause you to SERIOUSLY INJURE or KILL another person . . . and EVEN IF you don’t actually HIT someone you are going to be pouring toxins into the lungs and bloodstreams of other victims in your vicinity, which IN ITSELF amounts to a SERIOUS physical ASSAULT, whether or not the law AT PRESENT recognizes it as such (as eventually it WILL).

sharinalr Your “JUSTIA” source is evidently some kind of cheap commercial website with NO official status, and is clearly ENTIRELY unreliable, as is shown by its absurd and nonsensical use of the word “instrumentality” lol!

It is IMPOSSIBLE to drive a motor vehicle at conventional speeds without creating a danger of serious injury OR INDEED DEATH to other people.”—That is false considering people do this daily. You make a nice appeal to emotion, but that does nothing for what the law states. It simply is your opinion and your opinions are not more valid than legal statues that do not define or see a motor vehicle as a deadly weapon unless it is used as such. Driving it alone does not constitute being used as such no matter how you word. You have not provided not one source that says this but want to manipulate the wording to fit this. You are, as the saying goes, stuck on stupid. You are so driven by this opinion that anything outside of it you don’t or can’t grasp. I’m not saying this to be mean. I am saying it to point out a very huge blind spot in your logic.

““JUSTIA” source is evidently some kind of cheap commercial website with NO official status, and is clearly ENTIRELY unreliable, as is shown by its absurd and nonsensical use of the word “instrumentality” lol!”—Actually it is quite official. I am terrible sorry you never actually saw what legal statutes look like. It is much more official than this legal blog you used.

“Disclaimer: These codes may not be the most recent version. Pennsylvania may have more current or accurate information. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or the information linked to on the state site. Please check official sources.”

sharinalr I wrote: “It is IMPOSSIBLE to drive a motor vehicle at conventional speeds without creating a danger of serious injury OR INDEED DEATH to other people.”

In response to which you wrote, ABSURDLY “That is false considering people do this daily.”

You are SERIOUSLY trying to claim that “People DAILY drive a motor vehicle at conventional speeds WITHOUT creating any danger of serious injury or death to other people”? You are clearly utterly insane – COMPLETELY DELUDED and absolutely BARKING mad.

“You are clearly utterly insane – COMPLETELY DELUDED and absolutely BARKING mad.”—No dude you are deluded. I gather many on this thread and in life have driven a car at conventional speeds and none of them managed to not create any danger or serious harm to any one. If they had then they would no longer be commenting as they would be in jail.

Two more for you with one being a repeat. Copy and paste the first and it pulls up just fine, but they all say the same thing. Refuting you none the less.

sharinalr A device does not have to have been designed or manufactured with the intention of its being used as a deadly weapon for it to in practice BE a deadly weapon, and if something IS a deadly weapon it IS that REGARDLESS of whether it is ACTUALLY being used as such (although of course motor vehicles very often ARE used as such, and INCREASINGLY so . . . in Europe motor vehicles are becoming the MAIN terrorist weapon).

“A device does not have to have been designed or manufactured with the intention of its being used as a deadly weapon for it to in practice BE a deadly weapon, and if something IS a deadly weapon it IS that REGARDLESS of whether it is ACTUALLY being used as such (although of course motor vehicles very often ARE used as such, and INCREASINGLY so . . . in Europe motor vehicles are becoming the MAIN terrorist weapon).”—Sorry, but what source can you produce that says this? Not only have my sources refuted this, but the very one you recently brought up refutes it. You are entitled to you own opinion, but not your own realm of facts. Up is not down here.

sharinalr Your “mind” seems to have gone completely – you say “none of them managed to not create any danger or serious harm to any one” which IN FACT means that ALL of them DID create danger or serious harm to someone. Has nobody EVER taught you about avoiding double negatives?

Oh come now. No need to be a sore loser. What I don’t care about is grammar or your crybaby antics. Besides…we both know garbage was what you wrote. Precisely why you kept contradicting your own sources and using ad hominems.

sharinalr “Precisely why you kept contradicting your own sources.” THAT of course is PROJECTION yet again! The person doing PRECISELY THAT is of course YOU. Likewise with the accusation of “crybaby antics” lol. As when I point out that what you have written is contradictory and incoherent, whereupon you (instead of trying to actually LEARN SOMETHING) stamp your petulant little feet and cry “boohoo! I don’t care about horrible nasty old grammar!” lol.

Something I’ve often observed is that people who “don’t care about grammar” ALSO (and it’s NO coincidence) don’t care about TRUTH.

And this is prime example why it is clear you have no grasp on reality. Everything I said you did I provided examples of you doing.

So if I am projecting then why did you say:A device does not have to have been designed or manufactured with the intention of its being used as a deadly weapon for it to in practice BE a deadly weapon, and if something IS a deadly weapon it IS that REGARDLESS of whether it is ACTUALLY being used as such

But your source says: Pennsylvania defines a deadly weapon as any device, implement, or instrumentality designed as a weapon or capable of producing death or serious bodily injury. These would include knives, BB guns, baseball bats, CARS, and tire irons. The court must consider whether the offender intended to use the weapon to threaten or injure another person

That is literally a full fledge contradiction. Using MUST or would never contradicted what the source said. You don’t seem to understand what a contradiction is.

“instead of trying to actually LEARN SOMETHING”—It’s far from crybaby antics to not care what a deluded grammar troll thinks about grammar when he is using it to deflect. I was clear several posts ago when I pointed out your grammar troll habits. I don’t come here to learn grammar from someone who has little grasp on it themselves. However, name calling is the prominent sign of said crybaby antics and the prominent sign of a lost argument.

“on’t care about TRUTH”—See another fine example. Nothing you stated has been corroborated with any source presented by yourself or anyone else. Your opinion isn’t always the truth. Know the different between fact and opinion.

I have ALREADY clearly stated (MORE than once) that I am NOT primarily concerned with ANY MERELY TECHNICAL “legal definition” of “deadly weapon” but with what “deadly weapon” ACTUALLY MEANS in vernacular language.

Any TECHNICAL definition of it in legal statutes is a definition of a SECONDARY and ARTIFICIAL use of the expression.

And in many places (such as Britain, just for example) the expression “deadly weapon” OF COURSE doesn’t have ANY “legal definition” for the very simple reason that there is NO SUCH OFFENCE as “assault with a deadly weapon” or “possession of a deadly weapon” in those places.

“You REALLY don’t understand ANY OF THIS do you?”–Oh I understand you are probably very good at weaseling your way out of falsehoods in realize with dramatic appeals to emotions, but you don’t seem to be as verse at doing so outside of that.

” I am NOT primarily concerned with ANY MERELY TECHNICAL “legal definition” of “deadly weapon” but with what “deadly weapon” ACTUALLY MEANS in vernacular language.”—Yet you use a legal website that uses a legal definition in efforts to support your claim? As solitaire already pointed out, you can’t have it both ways. Not to mention when legal definition was brought up YOU spent several posts arguing with it.

The situation isn’t measured by Britain and “a lot of places” logic. Your original claim was that vehicles were considered deadly weapons worldwide. That was false and you argued with any and everything instead of simply acknowledging just that.

“I am NOT primarily concerned with ANY MERELY TECHNICAL “legal definition” of “deadly weapon” but with what “deadly weapon” ACTUALLY MEANS in vernacular language.”

This originally started when you tried to argue that Oriana Farrell was not unarmed because she was driving a car:

“a person sitting at the controls of a motor vehicle ISN’T “unarmed” … – a motor vehicle is … a DEADLY weapon”

But I see nowhere in case law in the U.S. that an individual is automatically considered to be armed just because they are driving a car.

You then continued to argue that since, in your opinion, Farrell was armed with her motor vehicle:

“the police were FULLY JUSTIFIED in treating her as “armed and dangerous”.”

But whether or not the police were justified in “treating her as armed” is something for the justice system to decide. And the justice system doesn’t use the vernacular but goes by legal definitions and legal precedents. Your “vernacular use” argument would not be allowed by any judge.

On the other hand, if you want to continue to insist on vernacular use as your keystone despite its being entirely moot in a court of law, I’m sure I can find many examples of reportage with wording like “an unarmed motorist” and “the driver was not armed but two passengers were.”

“ABSOLUTELY LEGITIMATE for another person to POINT OUT that it is false.”—So why did you have such a problem with people pointing out yours?

“at least with VERY SERIOUSLY BAD grammar such as your own.”–Point it out, but guess what? It doesn’t change that it became the focal of your arguments to avoid addressing your falsehoods. It also doesn’t mean I have to care.

“And HOW is pointing such things out being in any way a “troll”?”—This link does it perfectly.

The justice system initially determined that the officer may have acted inappropriately but later determine that the officer was justified in shooting at the car… or, more accurately that the officer did not violate the constitutional rights of Oriana Farrell and her five children when he shot at their minivan as they fled. So, he had to resign his state police job, but she was unable to sue him and he got hired as a sheriff’s deputy.

I also found that at one point one of the children in the car called 911 because they were looking for a police station to surrender at.

Farrell wrote a letter to the Taos News saying, “A uniformed officer can shoot three bullets at my van and be ‘doing his job,’ but my doing what I can to get my own children away from such a terrifying individual has been termed ‘child abuse’ and ‘endangerment,’ according to New Mexico law?”

Initially, the justice system also dropped her charges, but then reinstated her charges and finally accepted a plea where she did not admit guilt, but accepted that she would likely be convicted if it went to trial. So, in the end, she served 6 months unsupervised probation, some community service and had to participate in a “restorative justice circle” (whatever that is).

Honestly, I can pretty much understand the actions of every party involved in this with the exception of the Trooper that shot at the van. I can reconcile why she was trying to figure out an alternative to agreeing to be in court within 30 days, I can understand why the officer was losing patience with that. I can understand how she assumed he had given up when he walked away. I get why she was afraid of him once he was more aggressive at the 2nd stop and why her son felt the need to come to her aid… why he called for backup… and why she fled when things escalated to the point of breaking windows. I would have assumed someone was about to wind up dead at that point and when the other officer shot at her van, it only confirmed that. Who wouldn’t be panicked and running for their lives at that point? Now, we can all sit here and say that any one of those other variables would have been different if it had been us. One person might have had the cruise set at 54mph, one person might have just paid the ticket over the phone at the next rest area, one person might have never been suspicious of the police to begin with and a better cop would have been able to approach the situation with empathy and not escalated things. Heck, I even read where she had a handshake agreement with the officer that he wouldn’t hurt her before she exited the car. She wanted to bring everything to a satisfactory resolution, but drama just kept unfolding at every turn and things escalated at ever step until, someone shot at her family.

That is not ok. Daniel, stop trying to justify it. She hit no one. She hurt no one. Shooting a gun at her van was not ok. You want to play “what if”? As in, What if she had hit someone and killed them due to her speed? Ok, well what if the trooper had successfully punctured her tire and caused her to flip the van, killing a child or two? What if he had shot one of the kids? Yeah, yeah, he was aiming for the tires… but he missed didn’t he? So, he wasn’t in control of where those bullets were going. So, I repeat, shooting at that van was not ok.

Solitaire Since the person referred to here as either “Farrell” or “Ferrell” was not charged with “assault with a deadly weapon” (for example) “or possession of a deadly weapon” or (as far as I am aware) ANY offence in the statutory description of which offence the expression “deadly weapon” is used, a court could quite happily take into account whether the woman in question was IN THE VERNACULAR SENSE and for PRACTICAL purposes “equipped with a deadly/lethal weapon.”

For example in ANY criminal or civil case brought against Elias Montoya for firing at the van his defense could PERFECTLY WELL have argued that the driver of the “minivan” was equipped with a deadly weapon (in the vernacular sense of the term “deadly weapon”) and that THEREFORE shooting to disable or neutralize that weapon was fully justified.

There would be nothing to prevent a judge or a jury from accepting that argument and reaching a decision accordingly

A case WAS of course brought against Montoya by “Oriana Farrell” – for alleged use of excessive force and violation of the Fourth Amendment right against “unreasonable seizure.”

Montoya’s defense was in fact, however, a more technical one than the defense which I am arguing COULD have been used.

“ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that a New Mexico police officer did not violate the constitutional rights of a woman and her five children when he shot at their minivan as they fled a chaotic traffic stop.

“The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals issued the ruling in the case filed by Oriana Farrell, who was pulled over for speeding and led officers on a high-speed pursuit through the tourist enclave of Taos.

“The appeals court found that the case against Elias Montoya, the officer who fired three times at the van and later left the force, should have been dismissed by a lower court.

“Montoya’s defense rested on the principal [sic] of qualified immunity, which shields public officials from legal actions UNLESS THEIR CONDUCT WAS UNREASONABLE IN LIGHT OF CLEARLY ESTABLISHED LAW [my block capitals]..

“The appeals court disagreed with the Farrells and noted that seizure situations end once a suspect flees . . . ”

[and]

” . . . The van began to drive away and Montoya fired three shots.

“Court records show the minivan neither slowed nor stopped as the shots were fired.

“Montoya said he was aiming at the rear tire. Authorities say no bullets hit the van or anyone inside.

“The three officers gave chase, at times reaching speeds of 100 mph.

“AS FARRELL REACHED A CONGESTED AREA . . . SHE WEAVED THROUGH TRAFFIC AND DROVE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE ROAD ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS [my block caps].”

“Ok, well what if the trooper had successfully punctured her tire and caused her to flip the van, killing a child or two? What if he had shot one of the kids? Yeah, yeah, he was aiming for the tires… but he missed didn’t he? So, he wasn’t in control of where those bullets were going. So, I repeat, shooting at that van was not ok.”

Three pistols bullets in that situation were EXTREMELY UNLIKELY to harm ANYONE – whereas, BY COMPLETE CONTRAST, weaving through busy traffic at speeds such as the madwoman was doing (let alone driving ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE ROAD at such speeds) was VERY LIKELY to cause a collision which would have QUITE PROBABLY killed not only the madwoman and her gang of repulsive idiotic brats but multiple ABSOLUTELY INNOCENT members of the public AS WELL.

[Farrell wrote a letter to the Taos News saying, “A uniformed officer can shoot three bullets at my van and be ‘doing his job,’ but my doing what I can to get my own children away from such a terrifying individual has been termed ‘child abuse’ and ‘endangerment,’ according to New Mexico law?]

The madwoman OBVIOUSLY WASN’T “fleeing in order to get her children wasn’t away from such a terrifying individual” – she was ALREADY IN THE PROCESS OF FLEEING FOR A SECOND TIME BEFORE Montoya fired his three little pistol shots, which OF COURSE was WHY Montoya fired AT ALL.

And the madwoman was BEFORE she was stopped the FIRST time ALREADY guilty of child abuse and endangerment by virtue of driving at 16mph over the speed limit with five children in her vehicle.

“here would be nothing to prevent a judge or a jury from accepting that argument and reaching a decision accordingly”—Actually it would. It is called the law. If that vehicle is not defined as a deadly weapon then the argument would be moot. You can’t argue a vernacular meaning of a word with a judge and expect it to be accepted. A court is for arguing legalities.

“If the police were concerned about her presenting a danger to others, there are better ways to disable a vehicle than shooting at it.”

Yes, matters should NEVER have been permitted to get that far. The police performance was completely inept.

After she fled THE FIRST TIME DeTavis should have done what police here are trained to do in such circumstances, i.e. IMMEDIATELY smash the driver’s window, extract the driver from the vehicle and get the handcuffs on him (or her).

Otherwise there is the risk of PRECISELY what happened in New Mexico, i.e. a very dangerous high-speed chase (or the police can decide not to risk such a chase, which may turn out to be EVEN MORE dangerous when the felon gets away).

In the UK the two cops who arrived to assist DeTavis would almost certainly have just boxed in the madwoman’s van, but I suppose in such a situation US cops would be wary of coming under fire (fire amounting to a good deal more than a mere three shots from a medium-calibre pistol).

sharinalr That is just more of your BS. Courts take into account arguments couched in vernacular language ALL THE TIME. As I pointed out to you there is here NO special or technical definition of “deadly weapon” (because the phrase “deadly weapon” doesn’t appear in any legislation) but that doesn’t prevent the expression “deadly weapon” being used in an argument presented in court.

“courts take into account arguments couched in vernacular language ALL THE TIME.”—No, they don’t. They take into account arguments that follow law. A defense is mounted based on laws not based on whatever you think is a reasonable excuse.

“because the phrase “deadly weapon” doesn’t appear in any legislation”—That is a lie as majority of my sources were from statutes that define deadly weapon. Most states have a definition for it.

Solitaire You continue to bleat on hypocritically as if “going 17 mph over the speed limit” is some kind of trivial matter.

It ISN’T a trivial matter

As I pointed out to you at almost the very outset of this, speeding at 5mph over the limit (let alone at – like the madwoman in New Mexico – 17mph above the limit, i.e. MORE THAN 29 PERCENT OVER THE LIMIT) is a behavior that KILLS MANY INNOCENT PEOPLE – it INJURES MANY MORE completely innocent people – and it also of course BEREAVES COUNTLESS PEOPLE.

I can appreciate that in your country, and personal life experience, vehicles may kill more frequently than “a mere three shots from a medium-calibre pistol“. However, on this side of the pond, motor vehicle traffic deaths and firearm deaths are virtually tied (36k each with firearms edging out vehicles by less than 100 in the most recent data I could find from the CDC, 2015). Granted, most vehicle fatalities are drug & alcohol related (alcohol is such a deadly weapon isn’t it?) and most firearm fatalities are suicides. We’d have to do a deep dive into the stats to declare a winner, but since the fatal accident data I’ve already looked at for my own area puts less than 10% of traffic fatalities on the high-speed freeways, I’d rather share the highway with a speeder than someone shooting a pistol toward me.

I see and respect your viewpoint that speeding is dangerous. I disagree with your categorization of it as a weapon except in cases where it is deliberately being used as such. I am of the opinion that deadly force should not be used when there’s a low probability of injury or death to others. In spite of your feelings, 71mph in a 55mph zone doesn’t usually kill people. Sure, it can… but it didn’t in this case, and rarely does. If you insist that it does, then why on Earth would the officers risk pursuit at speeds much higher than that?!? Her van plus 3 cruisers equates to 4 times as many “deadly weapons” being deployed on an unsuspecting public! I also believe that if they had not shot at her, she would have continued to “flee” at posted speeds just as she had the 1st time until she reached a safe place to surrender. I know that’s lost on you though, because you think it irrational for her to believe she was in any danger.

That’s the thing. In your mind, the police were justified in using any means necessary to stop a homicidal madwoman. I see a mother acting differently than I would, but once I spent some time reading and watching interviews and videos I could understand her actions and I do not see them as that of a madwoman. Others have tried to provide you with examples of truly mad, aggressive and homicidal individuals who’s lives, and the lives of their children, were not treated with the same disregard. You fail to see the relevance because you’re having a completely different conversation… coming from a place devoid of empathy.

I have to wonder, why are you even posting here? What can you possibly hope to gain? Vengeance?

[I]nnocent bystanders — meaning people not at all involved with the chase — account for 27 percent of all police chase deaths….

Given the high risk, you might assume that cops only give chase to the most violent criminals, in circumstances in which the hazards of a high-speed chase are outweighed by the risk posed by the criminals, right? But you’d be wrong.

Ninety one percent of high-speed chases are initiated in response to a non-violent crime, according to a fascinating report from the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the National Institute of Justice. They analyzed nearly 8,000 high-speed chases in the IACP’s database. What they found was that the overwhelming majority of pursuits — 91 percent of them — were not initiated in response to a violent crime.

“There’s no question that when you’re engaging in a chase, you’re engaging in something that can turn out many ways, and many are bad outcomes,” said John Firman of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, whose survey of 17,000 chases nationally since 2001 shows that 92% began for a traffic violation, misdemeanor or non-violent felony such as car theft.

Police often suspect fleeing drivers are wanted for a serious offense. And they dislike letting a violator get away. During a chase police can be overcome by “a need to ‘win’ and make the arrest,” which blinds them to the danger they are helping create, a 2010 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin reported….

Few drivers fleeing police are wanted felons, according to statistics and research. Most committed minor offenses and “made very bad decisions to flee,” a 2008 paper by the Police Foundation said….

Although police chases have been recognized as dangerous for nearly half a century, both training and technology remain inadequate, experts say.

The average police trainee received 72 hours of weapons training compared to 40 hours of driving training, only a portion of which covered chases, according to a 2006 Justice Department study of police training academies.

A 2007 survey of Florida Highway Patrol sergeants showed that 80% thought that patrol officers “did not have adequate training in the area of pursuit driving.”

“We’re not taking it seriously enough because we think that one day of training that an officer may have gotten in their academy is going to take effect 10 years later when a pursuit begins,” said Maj. Travis Yates, the Tulsa expert on police chases. “Most officers will never fire their firearms ever, but we train one to four times a year” on using guns.

Chases have been left behind in the modernization of police equipment that is now moving toward outfitting officers with body cameras. …

Police use of Tasers, body armor, cameras and computers in patrol cars has soared, Justice Department reports show. In 2007, 90% of police worked for a department that used portable computers. In 1990, that figure was 30%.

Yet the principal “technology” for chases are tire spikes — two decades old and seldom used because police must know where a fleeing car is heading so they can pull a strip of spikes across a road. Police in Minnesota used spikes in only 3% of the nearly 1,000 chases in the state in 2014, state records show….

“There’s been a lot of advances in police technology in the last 15 years. The pursuit-termination devices we envisioned haven’t kept up with those advances,” said Farrow, the California Highway Patrol commissioner.

A federal effort to develop advanced systems has fallen well short of the hype of a 1996 Justice Department bulletin headline, “High-Speed Pursuit: New Technologies Around the Corner.” Federal justice and transportation officials began studying improvements to pursuit safety after a controversial 1968 study by Physicians for Automotive Safety said that 70% of police chases result in crashes.

Devices that would shut off the engines of moving cars by transmitting microwaves are not commercially available a decade after the Justice Department funded their development. “It’s very frustrating that we haven’t gotten to that next stage,” said Bill Miera, owner of Fiore Industries of New Mexico, which tried to build the devices with the help of a $300,000 federal grant but ran short of money.

A device that shoots a small, adhesive GPS tag onto a car exterior was introduced for police in 2010, but is used by only 20 of the nation’s 18,000 police departments. Attaching a GPS tag lets police stop their chase — which prompts fleeing drivers to slow down — and follow the car by computer until it stops, where they can make an arrest.

The Arizona Department of Public Safety has embedded the systems in seven cars and uses them every time an officer can get within 30 feet of a fleeing vehicle, Capt. Chris Hemmen said. After tagging a car, police shadow it from a couple of blocks away. “As soon as they stop, we’re able to pounce,” Hemmen said…

Flynn restricted chases after four bystanders were killed over three months in 2009 and 2010. Immediately after the deaths, Flynn defended his officers, noting they followed department policy and had actually stopped their pursuits only to have the fleeing drivers continue speeding away and hit the bystanders. Fleeing drivers typically continue speeding for a minute or two after police stop their chase, studies show.

“I thought to myself, it’s not enough that we have a policy that tells our officers to terminate pursuits when they become unsafe. That was the industry standard,” Flynn said. “I needed an extra line to stop the pursuit in the first place, not because the officers were driving recklessly, but because we can’t control the behavior for those who refuse to stop for police.”

In other words, not being able to predict or comtrol what the fleeing driver will do is the reason the police should choose to not pursue rather than to do so.

“I also believe that if they had not shot at her, she would have continued to “flee” at posted speeds just as she had the 1st time until she reached a safe place to surrender. I know that’s lost on you though, because you think it irrational for her to believe she was in any danger.”

This is one of the safety tips that women are given all the time, including to call 911 to inform them of your intentions just like her son did. The problem is, you have to balance the risk of sexual assault etc. against the risk of making the cop angry. It’s a lose/lose situation.

Yep, 100% aware of both points above. It’ll all be lost on Daniel though because the battle he/she/it is fighting isn’t about this incident or police behavior. I’d love to know the search-term Daniel used to land on this 5-year old thread and begin this crusade.

“Three pistols bullets in that situation were EXTREMELY UNLIKELY to harm ANYONE”
I guess you’re right… because they didn’t.

“BY COMPLETE CONTRAST, weaving through busy traffic at speeds such as the madwoman was doing (let alone driving ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE ROAD at such speeds) was VERY LIKELY to cause a collision”
I guess you’re wrong… because it didn’t.

“the madwoman and her gang of repulsive idiotic brats”
This is what you really came here to say and it tells me all I need to know about you.

I reckoned you were already aware, which is why on my first comment I put “OMO wrote” rather than “@ OMO” — in both cases my intent was just to build on and provide support for what you said.

I think Daniel Jones is a troll getting a kick out of arguing. I was going to stop responding at all, as I stated upthread, but he keeps saying things where I feel the need to reply for the benefit of any lurkers, whether now or five years from now.

I entertain no hopes of getting through to the troll. He is a nasty little piece of work.

Like other apologists on here for the dangerous behavior of criminal motorists you have as one of your primary methods in a discussion SYSTEMATIC MISREPRESENTATION of your opponent, and of what your opponent has said.

For example:

“In your mind, the police were justified in using any means necessary to stop a homicidal madwoman.”

HAVE I described the motorist in question as “a homicidal madwoman”? No, OF COURSE NOT.

She is certainly DANGEROUS but not (not as far as we KNOW at least) “homicidal” – although it was a matter of SHEER LUCK that her antics didn’t cause a collision and multiple fatalities – and if they HAD done so the word “homicidal” would of course be justified.

Likewise with “In your mind, the police were justified in using any means necessary.”

Also, your ability to think logically is, I am sorry to say, in very serious doubt.

You quote my:

“Three pistols bullets in that situation were EXTREMELY UNLIKELY to harm ANYONE.”

and you comment:

“I guess you’re right… because they didn’t.”

which however is of course a patently absurd, blatant non sequitur.

You share this failure in logic with “sharinalr” – who imagines that if she/he/personofunspecifiedgenderorofnogender or one of her little friends doesn’t ACTUALLY kill or injure someone an any given day they were therefore not ENDANGERING anyone on that day.

Solitaire People (people such as yourself) who are very narrow and conservative and blinkered in their “thinking” (and whose “thinking” is governed by stereotypes) have a noted tendency to regard anyone who has more radical views (or anyone who simply has DIFFERENT views from their own) as a “troll” (which concept is of course ALSO an example of “thinking” in terms of stereotypes).

This is you:

“Someone who disagrees with my view of the world!! Shock horror!! Oh my goodness! They must be a troll!!”

“BY COMPLETE CONTRAST, weaving through busy traffic at speeds such as the madwoman was doing (let alone driving ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE ROAD at such speeds) was VERY LIKELY to cause a collision”

and you then, again ABSURDLY, comment:

“I guess you’re wrong… because it didn’t.”

So you are in effect saying “if something DIDN’T happen then it CANNOT have been LIKELY to happen” the corollary of which is of course “if something is LIKELY to happen it WILL happen.” WHERE can you have acquired such a bizarre doctrine?

“This is what you really came here to say and it tells me all I need to know about you.”

Well now, HOW can I have come here to do so when I ONLY arrived at my present view of of the madwoman’s offspring AFTER I “came here.”

AND, of course, your “it tells me all I need to know about you” serves to display (and confirm) your prejudice, AND to confirm and reinforce what I have ALREADY said about your (and your bigoted collaborators’) persistent tendency to “think” only in terms of crude stereotypes.

I should have said, “Madwoman wielding a deadly weapon against an unsuspecting public with a high likelihood of injuring or killing someone.” I had paraphrased that to “homicidal madwoman” but perhaps something was lost in translation.
I truly should have specified “potentially lethal force” instead of “any means necessary” because of course you did specify that they should have smashed the window and extracted her prior to using potentially lethal force. I’m sure there’s some other means you may approve of, but since you didn’t list them explicitly, I will assume for now that yanking her out of the car for driving away at posted speeds and shooting at her van are the only two means of stopping her that you approve of.
“Also, your ability to think logically is, I am sorry to say, in very serious doubt. — Are you really sorry though? If so, I accept your apology.
“which however is of course a patently absurd, blatant non sequitur.” Well spotted! The statement about shooting being safe and speeding being safe were both intentionally ridiculous logical fallacies. You rightly notice that just because something didn’t happen doesn’t mean it couldn’t. However, you stop short of acknowledging that just because something can happen doesn’t make it likely.
You referred to yourself as my opponent. You’re not. You’re simply a conduit for a way of thinking and engaging with you gives me insight into discussions with my own acquaintances. It was also a fun way to say, “Hey Y’all” to some folks here since I hadn’t posted in a bit.
I really do want to know why you came here though. What did you search up to land here on this thread? Why this particular thread. You could have espoused your “madwoman and her gang of repulsive idiotic brats trash anywhere. Why here?

It is, of course, NOT merely a matter of something’s being inadvertently “lost in translation.” It’s clearly a matter of your wilfully/intentionally DISTORTING and MISREPRESENTING what I in fact wrote.

“It is, of course, NOT merely a matter of something’s being inadvertently “lost in translation.” It’s clearly a matter of your wilfully/intentionally DISTORTING and MISREPRESENTING what I in fact wrote.”

Nope… I paraphrased what I interpreted to be your opinion. You clarified your opinion and I adjusted. I had boiled down your opinion incorrectly. I can only assume our disconnect stems from the fact that I classify shooting at a car full of kids to be pretty far along the spectrum of means. In other words, everything else would be lesser means and therefore if the latter was OK with you, I felt it safe to assume that everything else would be too. Again, I stand corrected.

Oh… and same goes for the homicidal bit. Not intentionally misrepresenting… just me boiling down a madwoman wielding a car like a deadly weapon to imply homicidal.. my mistake was that I didn’t mean it in a legal sense, more of a colloquial usage of the word here in the States. However, given the context of your arguments I should have been more semantically precise and strayed away from terminology that could imply a legal definition.

Herneith Evidently you suffer from having some marked and rather pathetic anal obsessions (a characteristic which I have often noted in Americans, and which, I strongly suspect, derives from the strong, and indeed toxic, Germanic influences in US plebeian culture).

People (such as yourselves) who are very narrow and conservative and blinkered in their “thinking” (and whose “thinking” is governed by stereotypes) have a noted tendency to regard ANYONE who has more radical views (or anyone who simply has DIFFERENT views from their own) as a “troll” (which concept is of course ALSO an example of “thinking” in terms of stereotypes).

This is you lot:

“Someone who disagrees with our view of the world!! Shock horror!! Oh my goodness! Help help help!! They must be a troll!!”

Actually, people from all over the world comment on this blog. The current lot of regulars includes commenters on at least four different continents. If you take a second to consider that fact, you will realize that of course we don’t all share the same world view.

If you act like a troll, you will be treated as a troll. If you act like a sincere commenter who wishes to have a serious and mutually respectful conversation about differing opinions, you won’t be treated like a troll. It’s that simple.

As for your: ” . . . includes commenters on at least four different continents. If you take a second to consider that fact, you will realize that of course we don’t all share the same world view” – this is simply YET ANOTHER non sequitur, a very OBVIOUS non sequitur.

sharinalr Ah, I’m glad you popped your little head out of the woodwork. I have been intending to encourage you to to NOT keep misrepresenting what I have said.

For example, at one point recently I had written:

“And in many places (such as Britain, just for example) the expression “deadly weapon” OF COURSE doesn’t have ANY “legal definition” for the very simple reason that there is NO SUCH OFFENCE as “assault with a deadly weapon” or “possession of a deadly weapon” in those places.”

In keeping with THAT I wrote a little later on:

“As I pointed out to you there is here [NOTE – “HERE”] no special or technical definition of “deadly weapon” (because the phrase “deadly weapon” doesn’t appear in any legislation) but that doesn’t prevent the expression “deadly weapon” being used in an argument presented in court.”

To which you replied:

“That is a lie [NOTE – “LIE”] as majority [sic] of my sources were from statutes that define deadly weapon. Most states have a definition for it.”

I suppose you mean “most states of the USA” . . . which of course confirms just how insular and narrow – i.e. how USA-centred – your outlook is (so “OUTlook” is, I suppose, therefore hardly the correct word for it lol).

It’s, again of course, not by any means clear that “most states” OF THE WORLD (as opposed to just “of the United States”) “have a definition for it.” (POSSIBLY they WOULD – except that MOST of the world’s states are NOT, of course, English-speaking lol).

It seems NOT EVEN TO OCCUR to you that there is A WORLD OUTSIDE the USA and that what occurs THERE as well as what occurs in “the good ol’ USA” might have some relevance in this discussion.

But the MAIN point here is that either you failed to read properly what I had written, or it would seem that you INSTEAD wilfully ignored the word “here” in order to MISREPRESENT what I had written.

And misquoting or misrepresenting passages is of course ALREADY a demonstrated and noted tendency of yours.

True. Plenty of disagreements, but also the maturity to move on after and not allow it to effect decent conversation and discussion on other posts.

As you can see Daniel is lacking and I think the death of his loved one has him blinded. I feel sorry for him in a sense because that much hate has to be taxing. However, can’t deny his entertainment factor though even that has lost value. Now I did give him a link on being a grammar troll up-thread, so he is aware of at least some tactics he used that made him as such.

Nice catch on the comment from Kenny. I didn’t think it was on this thread.

It seems odd that you bother to emphasize what is the merest HEARSAY (such as you just quoted above) when (indeed only a few of days ago) I gave you a long quotation from a document published by an agency (the Crown Prosecution Service) of the British state which acknowledges (and seeks to address, or at least, purports to do so) the prevalence of racist behaviour in the UK.

My response: Actually, it would. It is called the law. If that vehicle is not defined as a deadly weapon, then the argument would be moot. You can’t argue a vernacular meaning of a word with a judge and expect it to be accepted. A court is for arguing legalities.

Your response: That is just more of your BS. Courts take into account arguments couched in vernacular language ALL THE TIME. As I pointed out to you there is here NO special or technical definition of “deadly weapon” (because the phrase “deadly weapon” doesn’t appear in any legislation) but that doesn’t prevent the expression “deadly weapon” being used in an argument presented in court.

Here is where you place HERE in the sentence in efforts to switch to Britain law when you were not talking about it to begin with. Nice little change-a-roo, but doesn’t absolve you of the fact that you were wrong in context of what my response was originally to. These are becoming repetitive as in you think you have something, you don’t, and you go on and on because you can’t admit defeat.

If you rehash I will just post links because arguing with you is like arguing with a wall.

“nd misquoting or misrepresenting passages is of course ALREADY a demonstrated and noted tendency of yours.”–One last thing. It is hard to accomplish this when I am direct quoting and providing links. So save the projection. I think you are more angry that I found supporting links for what I said (something you couldn’t do) when you are consumed with the idea that it was a lie.

A Russian Nagpo No, but I don’t want (at his stage) to resolve the conundrum (if indeed it IS really a conundrum) if that’s all right with you.

It’s instructive (and, I’m somewhat ashamed to admit that I find it very amusing) to see the likes of “Solitaire” plant themselves in a hole of their own making and then blindly keep digging . . . lol).

The answer is VERY simple really. I’d be grateful though if you would wait a while for the answer . . . however (as the old saying used to have it) “watch this space” lol.

That’s if his story is even real. I (among others) expressed my condolences to him, but I did take note that he didn’t bother to respond in kind about the undergraduate I knew who was murdered by a police impersonator. Not that I needed him to, but the omission was telling.

“It’s instructive (and, I’m somewhat ashamed to admit that I find it very amusing) to see the likes of “Solitaire” plant themselves in a hole of their own making and then blindly keep digging . . . lol).”

Do not put commenter names in quotes. It is needlessly insulting – unless of course you are a troll.

sharinalr Any chance of your posting your last load of gibberish in something resembling coherent English (or, if not English, some other known language)? (Probably NOT, I expect).

Once again, you either didn’t read, OR you SOMEHOW disregarded, the crucial word here. And you then, on the basis of what was effectively YOUR LIE bout what I had written, accused ME of lying (JUST AS YOU HAVE DONE PREVIOUSLY).

It’s very difficult to know whether the MAIN problem here is that you cannot read properly, or that although you, despite appearances, CAN read but somehow cannot (even for a couple of minutes) retain in your brain WHAT you have read . . . or that you WILFULLY and SYSTEMATICALLY (whether consciously or unconsciously) MISREPRESENT what you have read.

All your posts are either ad hominems or some combination with deflections.

HERE is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with what you were arguing in original context which is American law. Your HERE was nicely place in efforts to bypass you being wrong to begin with. So I don’t even care about your HERE because you don’t get to toggle between American law and Britain law when it suites you.

How is it a lie about what you wrote when i am quoting you? Linking to it even.

I read just fine, but I won’t engage in your deflections. You don’t get to be absolved of being WRONG

“hat you WILFULLY and SYSTEMATICALLY (whether consciously or unconsciously) MISREPRESENT what you have read.”–Yeah you can cry misrepresentation all day, but those sources still refuted you and were quoted in full. So what part was misrepresented? I mean if this is still about the WOULD you are still arse out.

I don’t believe that it’s normally expected of ANYONE to express condolences to another person over the death of “an undergraduate they knew” which is REALLY NOT QUITE THE SAME THING as THE DEATH OF ONE’S MUCH-LOVED GRANDFATHER.

There have been VERY MANY people “I knew” who have been slaughtered by motor vehicles, and many others who have been crippled or maimed by them. If people condoled with me over ALL THOSE deaths and MAIMINGS there wouldn’t be enough time in the day to listen to all those condolences.

I don’t know how often a person gets murdered by a bogus police officer, but I’d be prepared to bet with complete confidence that BY CONTRAST WITH PEOPLE BEING KILLED in what are sickeningly referred to as “road traffic accidents” it DOESN’T happen ONCE EVERY 25 SECONDS.

sharinalr I JUST GAVE YOU A PERFECTLY CLEAR EXAMPLE of your misrepresentation of something which I had said. You simply keep telling LIE AFTER LIE about what has in fact transpired in our “discussions” – perhaps you have some known but very obscure mental condition of which I haven’t as yet heard.

sharinalr Amongst other things you don’t understand the relationship between English law and US law. When it comes to STATUTORY law often there are, of course, considerable differences (as one would expect, as indeed I was the one pointing out) . . . but in most US states the principles and the procedures and the precedents of the English legal system continue to apply.

A very great deal of US law isn’t just BASED on the English common law – it IS English common law.

“I don’t believe that it’s normally expected of ANYONE to express condolences to another person over the death of “an undergraduate they knew” which is REALLY NOT QUITE THE SAME THING as THE DEATH OF ONE’S MUCH-LOVED GRANDFATHER.”

It’s typically good manners to express condolences over any tragic loss. No, it’s not quite the same thing at all: it rocked the whole university and distressed so many people that the repercussions were felt throughout the rest of the year. And it is always terribly hard to lose a student, much less in such a horrendous way.

Of course, I have lost more people due to car accidents — including students. But you had scoffed at Oriana Farrell’s fearing the police officer. You tried to tell me that under those conditions she shouldn’t have been afraid. I know better, from bitter experience.

“There have been VERY MANY people “I knew” who have been slaughtered by motor vehicles, and many others who have been crippled or maimed by them. If people condoled with me over ALL THOSE deaths and MAIMINGS there wouldn’t be enough time in the day to listen to all those condolences.”

Join the club. That doesn’t make it right for you to denigrate Farrell as a madwoman and her children as brats.

“I don’t know how often a person gets murdered by a bogus police officer”

Sometimes they get raped by a real police officer. Especially if they’re black.

abagond If something ISN’T insulting “your word as moderator” won’t somehow magically MAKE IT INSULTING. I can’t forbear from pointing out that you don’t explain HOW it is insulting.

You might have noticed that at the head of a comment I DON’T (usually) put the other person’s username in quotes. I say “usually” because where a username has, as it were, “built into it” a somewhat tendentious claim as in “Open Minded Observer” it (for obvious reasons) becomes almost necessary to use quotes (otherwise one seems to be endorsing the claim implicit in the wording of that name). However, there is of course no such problem with the name “Solitaire” (now, THERE the quotes are needed because I am referring to THE NAME ITSELF rather than THE BEARER of that name.

Similarly there is an obvious difference between:

a) “Solitaire” is a good name [which may well be true]

and:

b) Solitaire is a good name [which, of course, is obviously false].

My usual practice is to put a username in quotes where the name is embedded in a sentence or other text (mainly as an aid to clarity). If I intended it to be insulting obviously I would put the username in quotes at the head of a comment AS WELL.

However, I wouldn’t insist on using quotes. In these circumstances obviously they are not obligatory. Nonetheless it seems to me that you are mistaken in regarding the use of quotes as insulting (or as INTENDED to be insulting either).

Solitaire Yes, impersonation of a police officer (known as IPO in Britain) is quite common, but MURDER by someone committing IPO ISN’T so common. A case that comes to mind is the killing of the gangster and kidnapper/extortionist James McBratney, in which John Gotti and two accomplices tried to take McBratney alive by pretending to be cops (the intention being to torture him before killing him). But things didn’t go according to plan and they ended up just shooting him without having tortured him. This incident is depicted in two films about Gotti, including the recent one directed by Conolly and starring John Travolta.

I can’t think of a case in Britain where anyone has ever been murdered by a bogus cop, although there was a notorious and extremely creepy British serial killer called John Christie who was a police officer during World War Two and (it’s believed) may have murdered several women under the cover of being a policeman (Christie was hanged in 1953 for the murder of his wife).

Solitaire On the relationship between US law and English Iaw I of course DIDN’T say that they are “the same thing, period” (and I think you know perfectly well that I didn’t say that).

However, they DO overlap to a surprisingly great extent. Like most things to do with the law this of course gets to be very complicated, and much of the complication has to do with the differences between one use state and another.

There are a good many US states the legal system of which actually has more in common with the English legal system than it does with the legal system of certain OTHER US states. These are in general known as “common law” states . . . in these very much of the law depends on precedent and “judge-made” law rather than statutes enacted by the state legislatures.

She doesn’t behave as if she is frightened of the policeman. She very obviously ISN’T.

If she HAD been “frightened of the police officer” she would obviously just have signed the citation (that was ALL she needed to do) and get out of there immediately (as she could SO easily have done), or say that she wanted to appear before a judge. INSTEAD she argued with the cop at length, precisely what she WOULDN’T have done if she HAD been afraid of him (and for SOME reason the cop put up with it, which was HIS first mistake).

The idea that (at least at that point in the incident) she was afraid of him is patently absurd.

sharinalr “Yeah and that has what to do with the price of tea in china? You don’t get to claim English law and falsely believe it applies to US laws. Obviously it does not.”

Well, a great deal of English law DOES apply in the US (certainly FAR MORE than YOU are capable of realizing) but that is beside the point, which is that although there is no offence of ADW or possession of “a deadly weapon” in certain jurisdictions (it doesn’t matter in WHAT jurisdictions) the expression IN ITS VERNACULAR SENSE can perfectly well be used in court proceedings. In other words whether something is a deadly weapon or not can be discussed and considered by a court REGARDLESS of whether “deadly weapon” has been given any statutory definition.

But I don’t think it has anything very much to do with the price of tea in China, lol!

No. I mean a source that says the U.S. uses the term “common law states” to refer to anything else besides common-law marriage.

And I mean a source that says in the above-named “common law states” the legal system “actually has more in common with the English legal system than it does with the legal system of certain OTHER US states.”

A number of misconceptions of the term “common law” exist in popular culture and non-lawyer sources.

Under the modern view, “common law” is not grounded in “custom” or “ancient usage”, but rather acquires force of law instantly (without the delay implied by the term “custom” or “ancient”) when pronounced by a higher court, because and to the extent the proposition is stated in judicial opinion.[6][7] From the earliest times through the late 19th century, the dominant theory was that the common law was a pre-existent law or system of rules, a social standard of justice that existed in the habits, customs, and thoughts of the people. Under this older view, the legal profession considered it no part of a judge’s duty to make new or change existing law, but only to expound and apply the old. By the early 20th century, largely at the urging of Oliver Wendell Holmes (as discussed throughout this article), this view had fallen into the minority view: Holmes pointed out that the older view worked undesirable and unjust results, and hampered a proper development of the law. In the century since Holmes, the dominant understanding has been that common law “decisions are themselves law, or rather the rules which the courts lay down in making the decisions constitute law”.[7] The reality of the modern view can be seen in practical operation: under the old “pre-existing custom” view, (a) jurisdictions could not logically diverge from each other (but nonetheless did), (b) a new decision logically needed to operate retroactively (but did not), and (c) there was no standard to decide which English medieval customs should be “law” and which should not. All three tensions resolve under the modern view: (a) the common law in different jurisdictions may diverge, (b) new decisions need not have retroactive operation, and (c) court decisions are effective immediately as they are issued, not years later, or after they become “custom”, and questions of what “custom” might have been at some “ancient” time are simply irrelevant.

Common law, as the term is used among lawyers in the present day, is not frozen in time, *and no longer beholden to 11th, 13th, or 17th century English law.* Rather, the common law evolves daily and immediately as courts issue precedential decisions (as explained later in this article), and all parties in the legal system (courts, lawyers, and all others) are responsible for up-to-date knowledge.[39] There is no fixed reference point (for example the 11th or 18th centuries) for the definition of “common law”, except in a handful of isolated contexts.[40] Much of what was “customary” in the 13th or 17th or 18th century has no part of the common law today; much of the common law today has no antecedent in those earlier centuries. Among legal professionals (lawyers and judges), the change in understanding occurred in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (as explained later in this article),[7] though lay dictionaries were decades behind in recognizing the change.

The common law is not “unwritten”. Common law exists in writing—as must any law that is to be applied consistently—in the written decisions of judges.[1][7][19]

Common law is not the product of “universal consent”. Rather, the common law is often anti-majoritarian.[41][42]

“the expression IN ITS VERNACULAR SENSE can perfectly well be used in court proceedings. In other words whether something is a deadly weapon or not can be discussed and considered by a court REGARDLESS of whether “deadly weapon” has been given any statutory definition.”

In the U.S., this can happen only if the judge allows it. How many times does that have to be spelled out for you?

If the prosecuting attorney tries to introduce this “discussion,” defense is going to object so fast it will make your head spin.

“In the U.S., this can happen only if the judge allows it. How many times does that have to be spelled out for you?”

You talk as if this is has been “spelled out” repeatedly already, lol. If so, where?

But never mind. Let’s deal with “only if the judge allows it” (a feature of the US system of procedure which, along with most of the other features of procedure in the US system, it of course derives from the procedures of English common law).

“In the U.S., this can happen only if the judge allows it.”

Obviously! Of course! And whether in the US or indeed in England itself, or ANY ONE of the VAST number of OTHER countries which employ the English common law system.

And it could apply to absolutely ANYTHING. If the judge doesn’t like a lawyer’s tie (or the defendant’s face) he CAN of course refuse to allow an argument (whether that argument is based on a statutory definition of some term or a vernacular one). The judge presides. He CAN, in practical terms, simply shut an advocate up. (It’s another “You CAN of course, but whether you MAY is another matter” situation, lol).

But if the judge in a particular court simply (let’s say it’s “the court of first instance”) refuses to allow a particular line of argument, and it can be contended that such a refusal in not rational (or, for that matter if the refusal is objected to on some OTHER grounds . . . or indeed on NO grounds at all!), it is obviously open to the judge (or judges) in a higher court to allow the argument.
That’s a rather large part of what courts of appeal are THERE for – to override irrational or arbitrary decisions by judges in lower courts.

[Or it may simply happen that an advocate in a higher court just goes ahead and presents the argument without the judge (or judges) demurring].

“English law DOES apply in the US (certainly FAR MORE than YOU are capable of realizing) but that is beside the point, “—Then provide a source that states as such. You will not be able to commit a crime in the US and be able to apply English law as your reason for it being legal.

“the expression IN ITS VERNACULAR SENSE can perfectly well be used in court proceedings.”—That is false. The primary reason why is because whether the case is decided by judge or jury, they will apply the legal definition of the term to determine your guilt or innocence. They are not going to apply the term in vernacular sense. If it is not considered as such in legal terms it will not be applied as such no matter what you argue. A judge can throw out your whole defense.

Herneith et al
As I ALREADY pointed out to Solitaire:
People (such as yourselves) who are very narrow and conservative and blinkered in their “thinking” (and whose “thinking” is governed by stereotypes) have a noted tendency to regard AYONE who has more radical views (or anyone who simply has DIFFERENT views from their own) as a “troll” (which concept is of course ALSO an example of “thinking” in terms of stereotypes).
This is you lot:
“Someone who disagrees with our view of the world!! Shock horror!! Oh my goodness! Help help help!! They must be a troll!!”
Lol!!!!!

I don’t know where you garnered such interpretations from my mockery, but say on. In fact, I can’t figure out how you can ascribe ideologies to mockery which makes no illusion to anything political. But from what I read from your posts, you keep changing the goalposts when someone calls you out. You go off on tangents which leads me to the following conclusions; you are you are full of crap, you are not serious, or, you are mentally disturbed(I’ll go with the third). I don’t agree with everything posted here, but I do enjoy diverse points of view as they can be entertaining and sometimes informative, you are not any of those things. In fact, you are rather tedious. Right now I’m enjoying a delicious cheese(extra old cheddar) omelet with an English muffin slathered with butter, now go fart in a wind tunnel, make yourself useful.

I wrote: “the expression IN ITS VERNACULAR SENSE can perfectly well be used in court proceedings.”

You wrote in reply: “That is false. The primary reason why [sic] is because whether the case is decided by judge or jury, they will apply the legal definition of the term to determine your guilt or innocence. They are not going to apply the term in vernacular sense. If it is not considered as such in legal terms it will not be applied as such no matter what you argue. A judge can throw out your whole defense.”

“An judge can throw out your whole defense.” What exactly do you mean by ? Do you mean in circumstances where there is no jury?

You write “whether the case is decided by judge or jury, they will apply the legal definition of the term to determine your guilt or innocence.”

Not necessarily. Very probably NOT. They may very well have NOT THE SLIGHTEST INTEREST in ANY definitions, whether “legal” or vernacular.

YOU very obviously don’t have much (if indeed any) experience, or knowledge, of the realities of criminal trials.

Juries tend to do WHATEVER they FEEL LIKE DOING, very often COMPLETELY DISREGARDING any advice (or indeed any DIRECTIONS of any kind) from the judge.

The fact that they CAN do that is a VERY LARGE part of the POINT of HAVING the right to trial by jury.

Jury trial means that the PEOPLE, one’s peers, ultimately make the crucial decisions (instead of those decisions being monopolized by the members of a privileged and unrepresentative elite.

BUT, as any experienced criminal lawyer, whether in the US, Britain (or indeed WHEREVER) knows, jury trial is (to put it mildly) something of a lottery.

What verdict a jury reaches is quite often a matter of whether they TAKE A LIKING to the defendant or not. Sometimes it’s whether they take a liking to one or other of the lawyers involved in the trial, and sometimes it’s whether they take a strong DISLIKE to one of the lawyers involved . . . and so on. (Juries have also been known to in some circumstances roll dice, cut packs of cards, or toss coins in order to arrive at a verdict).

YOUR assumptions about the way juries behave are simply the expression of an academic textbook-writer’s ill-informed fantasy.

I wrote: “the expression IN ITS VERNACULAR SENSE can perfectly well be used in court proceedings.”

You wrote in reply: “That is false. The primary reason why [sic] is because whether the case is decided by judge or jury, they will apply the legal definition of the term to determine your guilt or innocence. They are not going to apply the term in vernacular sense. If it is not considered as such in legal terms it will not be applied as such no matter what you argue. A judge can throw out your whole defense.”

“An judge can throw out your whole defense.” What exactly do you mean by that? Do you mean in circumstances where there is no jury?

You write “whether the case is decided by judge or jury, they will apply the legal definition of the term to determine your guilt or innocence.”

Not necessarily. Very probably NOT. They may very well have NOT THE SLIGHTEST INTEREST in ANY definitions, whether “legal” or vernacular.

YOU very obviously don’t have much (if indeed any) experience, or knowledge, of the realities of criminal trials.

Juries tend to do WHATEVER they FEEL LIKE DOING, very often COMPLETELY DISREGARDING any advice (or indeed any DIRECTIONS of any kind) from the judge.

The fact that they CAN do that is a VERY LARGE part of the POINT of HAVING the right to trial by jury.

Jury trial means that the PEOPLE, one’s peers, ultimately make the crucial decisions (instead of those decisions being monopolized by the members of a privileged and unrepresentative elite.

BUT, as any experienced criminal lawyer, whether in the US, Britain (or indeed WHEREVER) knows, jury trial is (to put it mildly) something of a lottery.

What verdict a jury reaches is quite often a matter of whether they TAKE A LIKING to the defendant or not. Sometimes it’s whether they take a liking to one or other of the lawyers involved in the trial, and sometimes it’s whether they take a strong DISLIKE to one of the lawyers involved . . . and so on. (Juries have also been known to in some circumstances roll dice, cut packs of cards, or toss coins in order to arrive at a verdict).

YOUR assumptions about the way juries behave are simply the expression of an academic textbook-writer’s ill-informed fantasy.

“As regards your long quotation from the Wikipedia article, what point are you trying to make (if any)?”

Does everything have to be spelled out for you? Do they not teach reading comprehension in English schools? Were there too many big words for you?

The section I quoted refutes your argument that “A very great deal of US law isn’t just BASED on the English common law – it IS English common law.”

The quoted section clearly states that, in the U.S., common law does not refer to “a pre-existent law or system of rules, a social standard of justice that existed in the habits, customs, and thoughts of the people.”

This refutes both your argument that our common law is still largely synonymous with English common law and your argument that our common law takes into account “customs” like vernacular usage/definitions.

Instead, in the U.S., common law is always changing; it “evolves daily and immediately.”

U.S. common law “is not the product of ‘universal consent’. Rather, the common law is often anti-majoritarian.” This means U.S. common law can go against what the majority of people believe to be true, such as the vernacular definition of a term. Your argument has been that the common vernacular definition of a term holds weight under U.S. common law precisely because it is the popularly used definition, but in this passage the article you linked to clearly indicates the opposite.

“the US system of procedure which, along with most of the other features of procedure in the US system, it of course derives from the procedures of English common law”

Some of our court procedure comes from England, but not most of it and certainly not all. Our judges don’t wear those funny little wigs either, thank god. Please note, moreover, that there is a significant difference between “courtroom procedure” and “common law,” at least in the U.S.

“That’s a rather large part of what courts of appeal are THERE for – to override irrational or arbitrary decisions by judges in lower courts.”

In other words, if the judge in the lower court makes an irrational and arbitrary decision to allow your “vernacular use of ‘deadly weapon’ in reference to a motor vehicle” argument, the court of appeals will throw it out as the rubbish it is.

“In WHAT way do I fail to “understand how [that] system of government works”?”

In every feasible way. I’m not here to give you a semester-long course in U.S. Government 101. Sharina gave you a hint. You can Google the rest and do your own homework.

You still have not provided any proof that “common law states” refers to anything besides those U.S. states in which common-law marriage is recognized.

And you still have not provided any proof that there are U.S. states in which the legal system “actually has more in common with the English legal system than it does with the legal system of certain OTHER US states.”

Until you can provide that proof, I don’t see how you have any grounds for continuing to argue that the lack of a legal definition for “deadly weapon” in the U.K. has any bearing whatsoever in the U.S. system of jurisprudence.

“Not necessarily. Very probably NOT. They may very well have NOT THE SLIGHTEST INTEREST in ANY definitions, whether “legal” or vernacular.”—Very much necessarily. I served jury duty in which you are presented with the law in the case and then the facts of the case. You must apply the law as it states and not a vernacular meaning. We also could account for the fact that I have worked for the solicitor’s office as a paralegal so have been present for many cases. This is how I was so well knowledgeable about you spouting BS.

“Juries tend to do WHATEVER they FEEL LIKE DOING, very often COMPLETELY DISREGARDING any advice (or indeed any DIRECTIONS of any kind) from the judge.”—If you believe that then present a source where juries do as most major case jury interviews they state how tough it was because they had to apply the legal meanings or the letter of the law.

“YOUR assumptions about the way juries behave are simply the expression of an academic textbook-writer’s ill-informed fantasy.”—I don’t assume. I apply experience. You sir assume and sadly you aren’t even doing so from an academic textbook.

sharinalr The idea that you (of ALL people, lol!) could have worked as a “paralegal” in ANY reputable law practice (when you are, as we see, capable of coming out with a piece of pseudo-English such as “I was so well knowledgeable” lol is utterly hilarious (or else GENUINELY scary) . . . and it isn’t MERELY a matter of your being MANIFESTLY incapable of writing anything resembling correct English, but that you have demonstrated OVER AND OVER AGAIN your UTTER INCAPACITY for anything EVEN resembling coherent thought.

I’m not sure that you actually READ the Wikipedia article – even the introductory sentences.

You wrote:

“You still have not provided any proof that ‘common law states’ refers to anything besides those U.S. states in which common-law marriage is recognized.”

when the Wikipedia article says:

“Today, one-third of the world’s population lives in common law jurisdictions or in systems mixed with civil law, including Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Burma, Cameroon, Canada (both the federal system and all its provinces except Quebec), Cyprus, Dominica, Fiji, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, Hong Kong, India, Ireland, Israel, Jamaica, Kenya, Liberia, Malaysia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Namibia, Nauru, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Trinidad and Tobago, the United Kingdom (including its overseas territories such as Gibraltar), the United States (both the federal system and 49 of its 50 states), and Zimbabwe.”

Please note: “including . . . the United States (both the federal system and 49 of its 50 states)” . . . QED.

I’m still waiting on that source that says “English law DOES apply in the US (certainly FAR MORE than YOU are capable of realizing) but that is beside the point..”

So far I have experience, statutes, and other sources involving criminal trials and legislation that refute you. Commence with the name calling and ad hominems. Oh and the grammar troll routine is old. Try something new…like actually making a point.

sharinalr In a “lax setting” lol? I am brought back to my original suspicion that you are struggling with having to discuss these issues in the English language, presumably because it isn’t your “first” or “native” language.

I DID, if you remember, offer to help you out with this little (well, in fact BIG) problem of yours.

If 49 of 50 states are “common law jurisdictions,” then there is of course no reason to make a special title for them, because those 49 states are the norm.

You argued that:

“There are a good many US states the legal system of which actually has more in common with the English legal system than it does with the legal system of certain OTHER US states. These are in general known as ‘common law’ states . . . in these very much of the law depends on precedent and ‘judge-made’ law rather than statutes enacted by the state legislatures.”

But the sentence you quoted from Wiki does not say anything about your assertions above. The Wiki article does clearly state that “common law” as currently defined in the U.S. is different than the historical understanding of the term and different from the way in which you are using the term.

If you Google “common law states,” you will see that the articles that come up concerning the U.S. all focus on common law marriage. This does not of course mean that the U.S. states do not practice common law in other senses, but it does mean that you are incorrect in your assumption that the term “common law states” in the U.S. refers to states in which the “legal system . . . actually has more in common with the English legal system than it does with the legal system of certain OTHER US states” and in which “very much of the law depends on precedent and ‘judge-made’ law rather than statutes enacted by the state legislatures.”

“I am brought back to my original suspicion that you are struggling with having to discuss these issues in the English language, presumably because it isn’t your “first” or “native” language.”

I don’t know if Sharina has said it in this thread, but she has said before on this blog that she doesn’t usually bother to proofread here. She does that enough at work and in her graduate program; she doesn’t need to do it here.

Some of her odder mistakes are due to composing on her phone. For example, my phone’s autocorrect just changed “odder” to “order.” I try to skim over my comments before I post, and so I caught that, although I don’t catch everything. Sharina proofreads her posts here less than I do, and presumably if she was writing this, she wouldn’t have noticed what her phone’s autocorrect had done. And then you would have pounced on “order mistakes” as an example of her “struggling with English” because you are a jerk.

Meanwhile you’ve been making plenty of your own typos and errors, but I don’t see any need to point those out to you when the errors in your logic are so much more glaring.

“I DID, if you remember, offer to help you out with this little (well, in fact BIG) problem of yours’—It’s called slang. See this is what happens when you think you are so smart and then turn out just to be soooo dumb.

“Despite so . . . what?”—You can go on and on all day about grammar, but at the end of the day you are being refuted by that very same person you are whining about.

“Grammar troll routine?” WHAT are you referring to now?”—All your posts in response to me. I gave you a link showing what a grammar troll is so don’t get amnesia now.

“The Wikipedia article on common law already referenced is a pretty good source which demonstrates EXACTLY that.”—I read the source and it still does not say that. So provide a source that does.

“There are a good many US states the legal system of which actually has more in common with the English legal system than it does with the legal system of certain OTHER US states. These are in general known as ‘common law’ states . . . in these very much of the law depends on precedent and ‘judge-made’ law rather than statutes enacted by the state legislatures.”

I’m getting tired of quoting this same passage, so hurry up and find a source that supports your claim or admit that you pulled it out of your arse.

“All your posts in response to me. I gave you a link showing what a grammar troll is so don’t get amnesia now.”

I’ve just had a browse through my previous “posts” to you, and very few of them make ANY reference to your atrocious GRAMMAR, whether specifically or otherwise . . . although I WOULD have been fully justified in doing so had I chosen to do so.

“I’ve just had a browse through my previous “posts” to you, and very few of them make ANY reference to your atrocious GRAMMAR, whether specifically or otherwise . . . although I WOULD have been fully justified in doing so had I chosen to do so.”—If you want to continue this LIE then I can link all posts were you did. That is part of the reason why I linked grammar troll source as you wanted to know why you were being called such. In the meantime find a source on your claim or you could just own up to being misinformed and enjoy this one showing the meaning of LAX.

You said they “are known as common law states” if they fulfill the following criteria:

1) The state’s legal system has more in common with the English legal system than it does with the legal system of some other U.S. states (presumably those states that are not “known as common law states”).

2) Very much of the state’s law depends on precedent and ‘judge-made’ law rather than statutes enacted by the state legislatures.

But you have not proven:

1) that there is a group of U.S. states collectively known by the title “common law states” where “common law” refers to the criteria specified above

2) that there is even a single U.S. state whose legal system is closer to that of England than that of other U.S. states

3) that there are any U.S. states in which much of the law depends on precedent and judicial decisions rather than state legislation

You can say QED all you want, but that it doesn’t make it so.

Until you provide incontestable proof for the claims you made above, your argument does not stand.

As the article makes clear, ALL states (other than Louisiana) incorporate the principles (and many of the customs and practices) of the English common law in their legal systems, BUT in SOME of these (usually ones such as California, where there is historically a strong Spanish influence) there are areas (or aspects) of the law which have CIVIL LAW rather than COMMON LAW characteristics (the word “hybrid” is sometimes used in connection with such areas or aspects of the systems of those states).

So I managed to get about 11 quotes and links of you talking about grammar and all of them are five days ago. You have only increased since then, but they will be visible when let out of moderation for you to lie about how you didn’t mean to or didn’t do that or pretend like you didn’t see it at all.

“Until you provide incontestable proof for the claims you made above, your argument does not stand.”

Coming from YOU that’s absolutely hilarious!

“Incontestable proof” of ANYTHING hardly exists outside of the fields of mathematics and formal logic, EVEN IN THE PHYSICAL SCIENCES . . . as ANY scientist worth his or her salt will tell you, PROOF doesn’t exist in the sciences, EXCEPT, as I said, in the areas of maths and formal logic.

What you wrote in your previous comment about Louisiana, California, etc. is true but has absolutely no bearing on your argument that:

“There are a good many US states the legal system of which actually has more in common with the English legal system than it does with the legal system of certain OTHER US states. . . . in these very much of the law depends on precedent and ‘judge-made’ law rather than statutes enacted by the state legislatures.”

Since you protest, I will lower the barrier and remove the requirement for incontestable proof.

1) there are a good many US states the legal system of which actually has more in common with the English legal system than it does with the legal system of certain OTHER US states.

2) in these aforementioned states very much of the law depends on precedent and “judge-made” law rather than statutes enacted by the state legislatures.

Please note that proving the validity of #1 requires more than proving that the U.S. states differ from each other depending on how much each state mixes common law and civil law. You must instead prove that there are U.S. states in which the legal system is closer to that of England than it is to any other of the 49 remaining states. And to be scrupulously honest, you really should also be able to prove that the legal system of such a state is closer to that of England than it is to the U.S. federal legal system.

He doesn’t read which is why he thinks that source supports his claim. Though the fact that he doesn’t realize what he has been sayung makes tou wonder if that bottle of vodka has him faded or if that tin foil hat is a reality.

The United States and most Commonwealth countries are heirs to the common law legal tradition of English law.[22] Certain practices traditionally allowed under English common law were expressly outlawed by the Constitution, such as bills of attainder[23] and general search warrants.[24]

As common law courts, U.S. courts have inherited the principle of stare decisis.[25] American judges, like common law judges elsewhere, not only apply the law, they also make the law, to the extent that their decisions in the cases before them become precedent for decisions in future cases.[26]

The actual substance of English law was formally “received” into the United States in several ways. First, all U.S. states except Louisiana have enacted “reception statutes” which generally state that the common law of England (particularly judge-made law) is the law of the state to the extent that it is not repugnant to domestic law or indigenous conditions.[27] Some reception statutes impose a specific cutoff date for reception, such as the date of a colony’s founding, while others are deliberately vague.[28] Thus, contemporary U.S. courts often cite pre-Revolution cases when discussing the evolution of an ancient judge-made common law principle into its modern form,[28] such as the heightened duty of care traditionally imposed upon common carriers.[29]

Second, a small number of important British statutes in effect at the time of the Revolution have been independently reenacted by U.S. states. Two examples that many lawyers will recognize are the Statute of Frauds (still widely known in the U.S. by that name) and the Statute of 13 Elizabeth (the ancestor of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act). Such English statutes are still regularly cited in contemporary American cases interpreting their modern American descendants.[30]

However, it is important to understand that despite the presence of reception statutes, much of contemporary American common law has diverged significantly from English common law.[31] The reason is that although the courts of the various Commonwealth nations are often influenced by each other’s rulings, American courts rarely follow post-Revolution Commonwealth rulings unless there is no American ruling on point, the facts and law at issue are nearly identical, and the reasoning is strongly persuasive.

Early on, American courts, even after the Revolution, often did cite contemporary English cases. This was because appellate decisions from many American courts were not regularly reported until the mid-19th century; lawyers and judges, as creatures of habit, used English legal materials to fill the gap.[32] But citations to English decisions gradually disappeared during the 19th century as American courts developed their own principles to resolve the legal problems of the American people.[33] The number of published volumes of American reports soared from eighteen in 1810 to over 8,000 by 1910.[34] …

Today, in the words of Stanford law professor Lawrence Friedman: “American cases rarely cite foreign materials. Courts occasionally cite a British classic or two, a famous old case, or a nod to Blackstone; but current British law almost never gets any mention.”[36] Foreign law has never been cited as binding precedent, but as a reflection of the shared values of Anglo-American civilization or even Western civilization in general.[37]

I am laughing just knowing you are caught and proving to be a liar yet again.

“incontestable proof”–If you can’t wait you can always scroll up, but we both know you will do like you did when those ad homimens were pointed out. Lie and then change the subject to avoid owning up to it.

Though this is in fact another deflection because all that talk and still no source showing “English law DOES apply in the US (certainly FAR MORE than YOU are capable of realizing) but that is beside the point.” Show some source that says you can commit a crime and argue English law.

England and the United States have so many legal differences that they are sometimes described as “two countries separated by a common law.” …

[I]mportant differences appear in the rules of criminal procedure. In England, this rests on modern legislation….

In the United States criminal procedure has become a constitutional matter, with a kind of federal common law of criminal procedure overriding state law in many instances. Thus, due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure confer protection on accused persons….

The main difference between English and U.S. safeguards is that English protections rest on statute or case law and may be changed by ordinary statute, whereas U.S. safeguards are constitutional and cannot be relaxed unless the Supreme Court later reverses its interpretation or the Constitution is amended.

English and American law can still be recognized as partners sharing a common root in the common law before the 18th century. But they are increasingly diverging, and English law, with or without the European Union, now shows much more specific similarities to the law in other countries of continental Europe than would hitherto have been admitted.

“There is NOTHING in the most recent long screed you quoted that contradicts (or is EVEN IN THE LEAST inconsistent with) what I have ALREADY very clearly asserted on these issues.”

Every last bit of it contradicts your stance. In a U.S. state that does not have a legal definition for “deadly weapon,” the court would look to the precedents established in other states and/or the federal system instead of taking England as a guide, as you have tried to argue.

Which is easier than admitting that you have been unable to provide one shred of evidence that proves the nonsense you’ve been spouting off.

Where is your proof from an independent reputable source that “English law DOES apply in the US (certainly FAR MORE than YOU are capable of realizing)”?

I have just provided proof that English common law has no standing in the U.S. when it runs counter to domestic laws and precedents. I have also provided evidence that in modern times, U.S. law rarely cites current English law.

English law is what you have been referring to and using said words, so why now would you ask what they mean? They are your words are they not? Go head and lie so I can quote you. Now provide the source.

“Amongst other things you don’t understand the relationship between English law and US law. When it comes to STATUTORY law often there are, of course, considerable differences (as one would expect, as indeed I was the one pointing out) . . . but in most US states the principles and the procedures and the precedents of the English legal system continue to apply.

“A very great deal of US law isn’t just BASED on the English common law – it IS English common law.”

Sharina:

“You don’t get to claim English law and falsely believe it applies to US laws. Obviously it does not.”

Daniel Jones:

“Well, a great deal of English law DOES apply in the US (certainly FAR MORE than YOU are capable of realizing) but that is beside the point, which is that although there is no offence of ADW or possession of “a deadly weapon” in certain jurisdictions (it doesn’t matter in WHAT jurisdictions) the expression IN ITS VERNACULAR SENSE can perfectly well be used in court proceedings. In other words whether something is a deadly weapon or not can be discussed and considered by a court REGARDLESS of whether “deadly weapon” has been given any statutory definition.”

If, as you assert, a great deal of English law does apply in the U.S., then of course in applying that English law, a court in a U.S. state would look to England from whence came the law it is applying and would both reference and cite the aforesaid English law.

You are arguing here that a U.S. state which has no established legal definition of “deadly weapon” would follow the example of the U.K. which also has no established legal definition in deciding whether to admit to the court a discussion of the vernacular use of the term. In actuality, that U.S. state would follow the examples of other domestic courts, not a foreign court across the Atlantic Ocean.

Perhaps you could try to sketch out a scenario in which a court would (or in practice even COULD) prevent the term’s being used in its “vernacular sense.

But IN ANY CASE if there is in fact (in the relevant jurisdiction) NO statutory definition of the term “deadly weapon” WHAT POSSIBLE OBJECTION COULD THERE BE to the term’s being used in its everyday, vernacular sense?

sharinalr You say: So the words “incontestable proof” are solitaire’s, but did you not repeatedly say this “As I said, list them then”?

WHAT are you on about now? “As I said, list them then” was directed at YOU, and referred to your claimed “about [sic] 11 quotes and links” of me allegedly “talking about grammar” – and IN FACT I said “As I said, list them then” ONLY ONCE – and of course NOT “repeatedly.”

It’s very difficult to say with all this guff of yours how much is down to your simply being a shameless liar, and how much instead just down to your being hopelessly confused.

“The US courts are applying English law ALL THE TIME, for example (JUST for example, just ONE example) whenever court proceedings involve a jury.”

No one is denying that most legal systems and procedures in the U.S. are based in large part on the English system and English common law, but you fail to recognize that the two diverged a long time ago. The procedural use of a jury is not synonymous with applyingcurrent modern English legal rulings.

“Perhaps you could try to sketch out a scenario in which a court would (or in practice even COULD) prevent the term’s being used in its “vernacular sense.”

This has already been explained to you. But you need a scenario? Fine: It would be inadmissible as unduly prejudicing the jury against the defendant.

“But IN ANY CASE if there is in fact (in the relevant jurisdiction) NO statutory definition of the term “deadly weapon” WHAT POSSIBLE OBJECTION COULD THERE BE to the term’s being used in its everyday, vernacular sense?”

Answered above. It unduly prejudices the jury by using a phrase commonly employed in legal language as a criminal charge when there is in fact no such charge against the defendant. It violates the defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial.

Plus you still haven’t proven that “deadly weapon” is an everyday vernacular synonym for motor vehicle.

“WHERE have I said ANYTHING about US courts “applying current modern English legal rulings”?”—Your whole argument is based on this flawed logic as on several occasions you tried to apply said reasoning to Farrell’s case, but carry on.

“WHERE have I said ANYTHING about US courts “applying current modern English legal rulings”? of course NOWHERE. You are merely continuing to systematically MISREPRESENT what I have in fact said..”

You said:

*”A very great deal of US law isn’t just BASED on the English common law – it IS English common law.”

“Based on” refers in this instance to English common law as it existed prior to the establishment of the United States. No one is arguing that U.S. law was not based largely on English common law.

But you have not proven that:

“A very great deal of US law … IS English common law.”

You didn’t specify above whether you meant current English common law or 18th-c. English common law, but regardless, I have already provided proof that whichever of the two you specify, in neither case is your statement true. Most of U.S. law is separate and distinct from English common law, with the federal constitution taking precedence (in any and all legal questions) over even the most ancient and venerable aspects of English common law.

So you don’t have an understanding of the meaning of gibberish? So can it be assumed you also have little knowledge of the meaning of grammar as well? If I have to break it down then I will gladly have to call you stupid or insist you never question the intelligence of anyone.

In short you are basically saying my class of words in relation to sentences are meaningless and unintelligible writing. Thus, presenting a focus on grammar as you have been for several posts. We can use other definitions of grammar if you like, but ultimately will put you in the same position. A grammar troll.

Not allegedly. I provided a link of tactics of a grammar troll further upthread when you asked what made you one or what one was. I have also provided examples of you doing just that.

In fact, I could link abagond’s post on trolls as you fit the behavior to a “T”. I mean it is typical of a troll to not acknowledge he is one, but one thing is certain and that is behavior doesn’t lie.

“With the greatest respect, a person sitting at the controls of a motor vehicle ISN’T “unarmed””

I wonder what they’re armed with?

“ a motor vehicle is, as is often remarked ”

wait for it…

“a DEADLY weapon (far MORE deadly than, say, a knife or a small pistol).”

I get it, because “Speeding is an act of violence“. So it applies if “The defendant has been charged with reckless driving, exceeding the speed limit, failure to obey a police officer, and resisting arrest.“?

Nah “None of these charges you list entailS ANY NEED AT ALL to characterise the vehicle as a “deadly weapon.” Describing it as it a deadly weapon would simply be IRRELEVANT.”

But what about aggravated fleeing an officer, child abuse and possession of drug paraphernalia?

Characterizing your incoherent twaddle as gibberish ISN’T criticizing or even characterizing its GRAMMAR.

One would have to REWRITE your twaddle so that it made at lease SOME kind of reasonable sense BEFORE one could even BEGIN to evaluate its grammar (and I in fact HARDLY EVER pass ANY comment on the GRAMMATICAL errors which people make – I ALMOST ALWAYS simply ignore them – hardly the behaviour of a “grammar troll” . . . IF such a thing exists). –

“ a LIE is YOUR trying to make out out that I EVER claimed NOT to be concerned with grammar”—Not really. Had you read the comment in full you would know that was not the case, but you didn’t so the lie is all yours.

“Characterizing your incoherent twaddle as gibberish ISN’T criticizing or even characterizing its GRAMMAR.”—Actually it is and I do believe I explained why above. Your basis of my writing being incoherent isn’t based on the idea that it is so much as the little misspelling of words here or there or structure. All things that deal with grammar. Do you know the definition of grammar? I wager not if you are trying to pull this argument. According to those links above you don’t ignore them and a discussion of a grammar troll wouldn’t be brought up if you were. So a troll and a liar now. Sad.

There is very much a such thing as grammar troll. Try google or the link I posted. A nice tactic is using it to deflect from claims they can’t support. Kinda like your focus on asking me to prove you a liar and a grammar troll (already done) to avoid your lack of ability to provide a source for you claim. Yet to prideful to admit to not having one and spouting bs.

” Your “link” establishes NOTHING.”—Actually its LINKS and it establishes a great deal.

You claimed: very few of them make ANY reference to your atrocious GRAMMAR, whether specifically or otherwise . . . although I WOULD have been fully justified in doing so had I chosen to do so.

You continued this claim in stating: who is not EVEN primarily concerned with grammar

13 of your own quotes establish you as a….how did you put it….SHAMELSS LIAR. Furthermore, as per the link on grammar trolls typically use deflections to opponents grammar when they lose or begin to lose an argument. Here you keep indulging in this convo about grammar, but won’t offer up a source for your claims as to establish even a remote chance of legitimacy to it. You can’t. Though all I have said has been established as legitimate. Why are you afraid to admit you have no source, when it is well founded you don’t? All the ad hominems in the world won’t change you losing this argument or any other you engaged in on this thread.